Women’s Bragging Rights: Overcoming 
Modesty Norms to Facilitate Women’s Self-
Promotion
Author: Jessi Smith & Meghan Huntoon 
This is the peer reviewed version of the folowing article: Smith, Jessi L., and Meghan Huntoon. 
"Women’s Bragging Rights Overcoming Modesty Norms to Facilitate Women’s Self-Promotion." 
Psychology of Women Quarterly 38 no. 4 (2013): 447-459, which has been published in final form 
at DOI: 10.1177/0361684313515840. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in 
accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving. Psychology of Women Quarterly
Smith, Jessi L., and Meghan Huntoon. "Women’s Bragging Rights Overcoming Modesty Norms to 
Facilitate Women’s Self-Promotion." Psychology of Women Quarterly 38 no. 4 (2013): 447-459. 
DOI: 10.1177/0361684313515840.
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks 
scholarworks.montana.edu 
Women’s Bragging Rights: Overcoming 
Modesty Norms to Facilitate Women’s Self-
Promotion
Jesi L. Smith and Meghan Huntoon: Department of Psychology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
Abstract
Within American gender norms is the expectation that women should be modest. We argue that violating this 
‘modesty norm’ by boasting about one’s accomplishments causes women to experience uncomfortable 
situational arousal that leads to lower motivation for and performance on a self-promotion task. We hypothesized 
that such negative efects could be ofset when an external source for their situational arousal was made 
available. To test hypotheses, 78 women students from a U.S. Northwestern university wrote a scholarship 
application essay to promote the merits of either the self (modesty norm vio-lated) or another person as a leter 
of reference (modesty norm not violated). Half were randomly assigned to hear informa-tion about a (fake) 
subliminal noise generator in the room that might cause ‘discomfort’ (misatribution available) and half were 
told nothing about the generator (normal condition: misatribution not available). Participants rated the task and 44 
new naive participants judged how much scholarship money to award each essay. Results confirmed 
predictions: under normal conditions, violating the modesty norm led to decreased motivation and performance. 
However, those who violated the mod-esty norm with a misatribution source reported increased interest, 
adopted fewer performance-avoidance goals, perceived their own work to be of higher quality, and produced 
higher quality work. Results suggest that when a situation helps women to escape the discomfort of defying the 
modesty norm, self-promotion motivation and performance improve. Further impli-cations for enhancing 
women’s academic and workplace experiences are discussed.
Keywords
social norms, motivation, atribution, performance, modesty, impression management
Several years ago, we were puting together a magazine
fea-turing the achievements of women faculty on campus. We
put out a cal for women to share their successes and
accomplish-ments in teaching or research or family life. We
received no replies. We did, however, receive many replies
from people teling us about other women we should feature
and the good work that these other women on campus were
doing. Exam-ples such as ours ilustrate that many women
are fine with referencing the good works of others but are
reticent to pro-mote themselves. Such possible discomfort
likely stems, at least in part, from a lifelong process of
learning gender norms (Blakemore, 2003), whereby girls are
typicaly told to ‘act like a lady’ and be polite and quiet,
take up litle space, and be modest (Alen, Gervais, &
Smith, 2013; Blakemore, 2003). Girls are thus socialized
to be modest (Bronstein, 2006; Leaper, Breed, Hofman,
& Perlman, 2002), and research shows this modesty norm
influences women’s adult professional careers (Budworth
& Mann, 2010; Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Glick, 1999).
Professional careers and aca-demic purists in the United
States often require that people self-promote in order to
achieve success. Therefore, conform-ing to modesty norms
may prevent women from advancing or succeeding
(e.g., negotiating a high starting salary; Smal, self-promote 
in order to achieve success. Therefore, conform-ing to 
modesty norms may prevent women from advancing or 
succeeding (e.g., negotiating a high starting salary; 
Smal,Gelfand, Babcock, & Getman, 2007; Wade, 2001). 
Thus, it is critical to understand ways to enhance
women’s self-promotion without incuring norm-breaking
backlash. The aim of the curent study was to
empiricaly test whether women’s self-promotion
performance and motivation could be protected against
such norm-breaking discomfort using a misatribution
intervention.
We argue that breaking the gender modesty norm
causes women to experience discomfort (manifested as
situational arousal, anxiety, or fear). Certainly, one way to
escape such discomfort is to downplay or opt out of self-
promoting al together, thereby conforming to the modesty
norm. Indeed, women often want to publicly appear
modest (Gould & Slone, 1982). To be modest means having
a moderate opinion of one’s self and lacking pretentiousness,
as wel as denying responsibility for successes and
accepting responsibility for
failures (Gould & Slone, 1982; Moss-Racusin, Phelan, &
Rudman, 2010). For example, women lower their claims of
success in a public (vs. private) seting, whereas men’s claims
of success are not influenced by the seting (Gould & Slone,
1982). This modesty norm is embedded within the communal
orientation expectations for women. Indeed, women are
socialized to highly value communal goals, such as the goal
to help others and connect with others (Diekman, Brown,
Johnston, & Clark, 2010). Women are therefore expected to
be selfless, which is one of the components of modesty
(Wade, 2001). Because women are expected to be selfless,
they are also expected to advocate for others rather than
for themselves. The implication then is that the modesty
norm pressures women to advocate for rewards for other
people, but not for themselves. Such cultural norms may
be one reason why gender disparities persist in hiring
practices, promotions, awards,raises, and other important
workplace outcomes (Amanatulah & Moris, 2010; Rudman,
1998).
Norm-Consistent and Inconsistent Behavior
What happens when someone adheres to (vs. violates) a given
gender norm? Adhering to gender norms can be beneficial.
Women who behave in a norm-consistent manner are liked
more than women who behave in a norm-inconsistent manner
(Crawford, 1988). For example, a woman who displays sad-
ness (a gender-appropriate emotion for women; Condry &
Condry, 1976) in an interview seting is viewed more posi-
tively than the same woman who displays anger—with the
opposite being true for men (Brescol & Uhlmann, 2008).
This positive perception of norm consistency translates to
other important outcomes. For example, women who adhere
to gender norms by not expressing anger are accorded higher
status and higher wages, and they are seen as more competent
than women who do express anger (Brescol & Uhlmann,
2008; Rudman & Glick, 2001).
Whereas acting in a norm-consistent manner is often
beneficial (Wade, 2001), violating a given norm is nega-
tively regarded. People who behave in a manner inconsistent
with gender norms often sufer interpersonal consequences
(Brescol, 2011; Brescol & Uhlmann, 2008; Moss-Racusin
et al., 2010; Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Glick, 1999). For
example, even in circumstances where agentic qualities are
necessary (e.g., management or CEO positions), women are
more personaly derogated and disliked by others when they
display agentic (masculine) characteristics (Brescol, 2011).
This ‘backlash’ can ultimately result in agentic women
experiencing hiring, promotion, and wage discrimination
(Rudman & Glick, 1999).
Women who boast about their own accomplishments
violate the gender norm of modesty (Rudman, 1998). Such
‘self-promoting’ is defined as divulging one’s own accom-
plishments and credentials. In an interview seting, where such
self-promotion might be viewed as essential to success, women
might find themselves in a double bind: If they self-promote,
they are violating gender norms and might experience back-
lash; if they do not self-promote, they might not convey their
qualifications (Bowles & Babcock, 2012). Thus, even though
the seting requires self-promotion, women’s violation of the
gender norm may lead to negative consequences.
Furthermore, women may be more likely to ‘police’
other women’s gender norm violation. As a demonstration
of this patern, Rudman (1998) had women and men engage
in an interview task with two other people. One of the appli-
cants was a self-promoting woman and the second was either
a self-promoting man or a self-efacing man. Participants
were told they would be choosing one of the two applicants
as their partner in a competitive game with the potential to
win a cash prize. Results showed that only women found the
self-promoting woman less competent, less socialy atrac-
tive, and less hirable than the self-promoting man. What is
more, women disproportionately chose the self-promoting
man as their partner over the self-promoting woman; how-
ever, men chose equaly between men and women. Impor-
tantly, the results showed that when a self-promoting
woman was up against a strong male applicant, she was less
likely to get the job, especialy if women were making the hir-
ing decision (Rudman, 1998).
Not only do onlookers disparage women who violate gen-
der norms, but women themselves often go to great lengths to
avoid the potential backlash associated with norm violations,
even when it goes against their self-interest (Brescol, 2011).
For instance, women who are modest and communal should
not be out for self-gain, and research shows that women do
not negotiate as efectively as men—not because they are
inherently unskiled at negotiations, but because women
downplay their negotiation skils to avoid the backlash asso-
ciated with gender norm violation (Amanatulah & Moris,
2010). In their research, women who self-promoted by nego-
tiating on behalf of themselves (thus violating the modesty
gender norm) conceded much more than those who were
negotiating on behalf of others (which is consistent with a
communal interdependent gender norm). Results suggest that
women are not unable to negotiate, but instead women may
not negotiate on their own behalf in order to avoid the conse-
quences associated with norm violation.
When women are promoting the accomplishments of a
peer, this other-orientation does not violate the modesty gen-
der norm. As evidence, Moss-Racusin and Rudman (2010)
had participants either promote themselves (modesty norm
violation) or promote a peer (modesty norm consistent).
When women promoted the accomplishments of another per-
son, they showed increased promotion success; in contrast,
when asked to promote themselves, women were less suc-
cessful and felt il at ease. Thus, similar to the patern we saw
with negotiation research, it does not appear that women are
incapable of promoting accomplishments; rather, women seem
to hold back when it comes to specificaly promoting their
ownaccomplishments. Additionaly, men in Moss-Racusin
and Rudman’s study reported higher levels of success after
self-promoting than women, suggesting that the bariers to
self-promotion that are present for women do not extend to
men.
Women’s motivation for self-promoting seems to be
bounded by specific contextual features, including situa-
tional norms that suggest acceptance of the behavior versus
norms that trigger backlash fears (Rudman, Moss-Racusin,
Glick, & Phelan, 2012). Indeed, people are typicaly unin-
terested in and do not value activities that are perceived to
violate gender norms (Alen & Smith, 2011; Boiche, Plaza,
Chalabaev, Guilet, & Sarrazin,2014; Diekman et al., 2010;
Horgan & Smith, 2006). For example, heterosexual men
who participated in a medical task setup as norm-
inconsistent (i.e., a task typical of nurses) reported lower
interest in the task compared to men who engaged in the
same taskthat was presented as norm-consistent (i.e., a task
typical of doctors; Alen & Smith, 2011). Certainly, stereo-
types and social norms contribute to a person’s reduced
motivation, and such reduced motivation in turn reinforces
those very social norms—together creating a reciprocal
feedback loop (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000; Rudman
et al., 2012; Smith, 2004; Thoman, Smith, Brown, Chase, &
Lee, 2013).
One way that stereotypes and norms harm a person’s
performance and motivation is through the adoption of
performance-avoidance goals (Brodish & Devine, 2009;
Smith, 2004; Smith, Sansone, & White, 2007). Contempo-
rary achievement goal scholarship (Eliot & McGregor,
2001; Finney, Pieper, & Barron, 2004; Harackiewicz,
Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Eliot, 2000) shows perfor-
mance-avoidancegoals orient the person toward avoiding
performance failure relative to others; alternatively, per-
formance-approachgoals orient a person toward perform-
ing wel relative to others. These goals are differentialy
activated by salient contextual cues (Urdan, 1999). Thus,
one question we ask in the present article is whether enga-
ging in self-promotion undergender norm-consistent ver-
sus inconsistent conditions influences women’s adoption
of performance goals. Moreover, women’s lower self-
promotion performance and motivation could potentialy
correlate with performance-avoidance goal adoption given
that these avoidance goals are associated with a host of
maladaptive outcomes, including underperformance and
decreased interest (Harackiewicz et al., 2000).
If the self-promotion context is made more positive, women
may adopt fewer performance-avoidance goals and instead
adopt more performance-approach goals. Performance-
approach goals are characterized by a mixture of both posi-
tively and negatively valenced antecedents, including a fear
of failure, high competence valuation, and competitiveness
(Eliot & McGregor, 2001). Educational studies show a consis-
tent link between performance-approach goals and increased
academic performance, and sometimes, increased academic
interest (Harackiewicz et al., 2000).
A Situational Arousal Account of Modesty Norm
Violation
One potential way to make self-promoting more positive for
womenisbyreducingsituationalarousal.Peopleoften
experience situational arousal when they act inconsistently
(Zanna & Cooper, 1974). Indeed, people are motivated to
behave in a way to maximize consistency and to minimize
inconsistency in cognitions, feelings, and actions (Shaw &
Skolnick, 1973). In this context, consistency implies that the
cognitions, feelings, and actions of an individual ‘match.’
For example, if a woman knows that norms dictate that
women should not brag about their accomplishments yet she
finds herself in a situation where she must self-promote, this
‘mismatched’ experience can trigger situational arousal.
Such arousal is often experienced as discomfort, anxiety,
fear, or nervousness, as wel as physiological symptoms
such as increased perspiration or heart rate (Zanna &
Cooper, 1974). Situational arousal can be misatributed,
however, reducing the influence of the discomfort. Zanna
and Cooper (1974) found that when provided with an alter-
nate external source of arousal(i.e., a pil that ostensibly
caused arousal), participants induced to experience high
cognitive dissonance were less likely to feel they needed
to act consistently and were les likely to change their opi-
nions to match their behavior. Because participants were
able to misatribute the arousal associated with cognitive
dissonance to the pil, they did not have to adjust their opi-
nions in order to aleviate the arousal caused (in this case) by
cognitive dissonance. Their results suggest that when situa-
tional arousal is misatributed to an alternate external
source, the need to act consistently is aleviated (Cooper,
1998; see also Cooper, Zanna, & Taves, 1978; Zanna &
Cooper, 1974).
Misatributing situational arousal is a potential way, then,
for someone to overcome the need to act consistently. Less
is known about whether such misatributions of arousal can
work to overcome deeply embedded anxiety and fear result-
ing from cultural gender normsand expectations. Two stud-
ies on stereotype threat and misatribution do offer
promising evidence; in both studies, results showed it was
possible for women to overcome the anxiety associated with
taking a stereotype-threatening test (in which the norm is for
women to fail the exam) and improve their performance
when an alternative source for arousal was provided
(Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005; Johns, Schmader, &
Martens, 2005). Typicaly, when women are in a stereotype-
relevant situation (such as when taking a math test) even
subtle cues such as marking their gender on the test, or being
outnumbered by men, can trigger stereotype threat and lead
to lower performance (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Smith
et al., 2007; Smith & White, 2002). Yet, when women were
given an external source to misatribute their arousal (they
were taught that the stereotype itself is the source of anxiety
or shown a subliminal noise generator that supposedly
emited an arousal-causing noise), women performed beter
on the math test compared to women who were not given
an external source (Ben-Zeev et al., 2005; Johns et al.,
2005). Thus, it appears that misatributing arousal might
serve as one pathway to reduce the discomfort associated
with violating the gender modesty norm and thus free women
to engage in high-level self-promotion.
Study Overview
Given that the desire to behave consistently with the mod-
esty norm acts as a barrier to self-promotion in women
(Moss-Racusin et al., 2010; Rudman, 1998; Rudman &
Glick, 1999), our project aimed to test whether women who
violate the modesty norm but are given an opportunity to
misatribute any arousal would show an improvement in
their self-promotion. We compared these results to a condi-
tion in which women completed a similar task but did
not break the modesty norm—namely by promoting the
accomplishments of someone else. We assessed both moti-
vation (interest, performance-approach goal adoption, and
performance-avoidance goal adoption) and promotion per-
formance (actual and self-perceived). We also included
two potential control variables: length of the promotion
essay in terms of word count and particpants’ ratings
about the perceived value of the promotion task.
This reasoning led us to propose two hypotheses. First,
we hypothesized that we would replicate the effect of the
modesty norm within the normal (no misatribution avail-
able condition) such that self-promoting women who vio-
lated the modesty norm would be less motivated and
wouldperformworsethanwomenwhopromotedonbehalf
of another (Hypothesis 1). Second, we hypothesized that the
negative impact of violating the modesty norm would be
atenuated by misatribution availability whereby the moti-
vation and performance gap between self-promoting and
other-promoting women would close when self-promoting
women were provided with a misatribution source for any
situational arousal (Hypothesis 2).
Breaking down our second hypothesis, we predicted that
when provided with our misatribution-available experimen-
tal condition, women who violated the modesty norm would
show equal or improved motivation and performance com-
pared to women who did not violate the modesty norm,
thus closing the modesty norm gap found under normal
conditions (Hypothesis 2a). Furthermore, we predicted that
misatribution availability would enhance motivation and
performance for women who violated the modesty norm com-
pared to women who violated the modesty norm but were not
provided with an alternate external misatribution source
(Hypothesis 2b). Finaly, we anticipated that the misatribution
source would have no efect on women promoting on behalf of
another person (Prediction 2c). In sum, we expected that women
in the norm violation condition without a misatribution source
would difer from the remaining three cels of our 2 (modesty
norm violated vs. not violated) 2 (misatribution available
vs. not available) design.
Method
Participants and Study Design
Participants were 78 women (Mage¼19.78 years, standard
deviation¼3.24, range¼18–42; 90.6%White; 2.1%African
American; 1% Asian; 1% Latino; 2.1% Native American;
3.2%unreported) introductory psychology students who parti-
cipated for partial course credit. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (modesty norm vio-
lated vs. not violated) 2 (misatribution available vs. not
available) between-participants design. There were 39 women
in each of the misatribution conditions, with approximately
equal numbers of participants within each misatribution con-
dition assigned to the modesty norm violated (n¼21 in both
misatribution conditions) and modesty norm not violated (n¼
18 in both misatribution conditions) conditions. Because of
time constraints, data from four participants (two in each
of the misatribution conditions) were incomplete on the
survey measures; however, because the surveys were coun-
terbalanced (with the exception of the manipulation check
and demographic survey which were always handed out at
the very end of the study session), the missing data were not
consistently on one outcome. Thus, degrees of freedom we
report reflect the number of participants with complete data
on that particular measure.
Procedure and Materials
Participants were recruited for a study on the ‘Psychology of
Communication,’ supposedly in conjunction with the Ofice
of Career Services, meant ‘to look at ways to improve per-
sonal essays.’ Al participants were told they would be writ-
ing an essay as if they were applying for a US$5,000
university scholarship and that the essays would be reviewed
by a staf member and used in workshops to ‘aid undergrad-
uates with their writing.’ Al participants received an actual
description of a university scholarship (the ‘University Sys-
tem Honor Scholarship’). This cover story and design were
adapted from Moss-Racusin and Rudman (2010).
At this point, al participants were told that the department
was ‘researching the efects of extraneous distractions on
task performance,’ and as such, everyone would complete
a survey at the very end of the study on their perceptions of
any distractions experienced during the session. Participants
in the misatribution condition then received information
about the ‘black box subliminal noise generator’ (described
later). Next, al participants were instructed by the computer
about whom to write (modesty norm violation manipulation):
themselves (norm violation) or another student (norm not
violated). Participants were given 5 min to brainstorm before
the computer prompted them to begin typing their essay and
then were given 20 min to complete their essay. After time
elapsed, al participants completed a survey packet, were
debriefed, and thanked. Participants’ essays were saved in
Microsoft Word documents, and a separate set of participants
rated the quality of the essays.
Modesty norm violation manipulation.Al participants com-
pleted the same ‘promotion task’ (scholarship essay), but
the instructions for the essay difered. Participants assigned
to the modesty normviolationcondition were instructed to
write the essay as if they personaly were submiting it for the
scholarship; specificaly, they were told to write about their
own accomplishments and successes. Participants assigned
to the modesty normnot violatedcondition were instructed
to write the essay on behalf of a friend who was submiting
for the scholarship, that is, to write about their friend’s
accomplishments and successes. The use of self- versus
other-directed promotion as a manipulation of the modesty
norm was adapted from Moss-Racusin and Rudman (2010).
Misatribution availability and manipulation check. For the
manipulation of misatribution, we opted to use an external
object as the source of situational arousal. (Past research has
used items ranging from a cubical booth, screen filters, flick-
ering lights, a pil, and a noise generator.) We selected the
subliminal noise generator and created an ominous black box,
replete with wires and speakers (Ben-Zeev et al., 2005;
Olson, 1988). Participants in the misatribution available con-
dition were told the subliminal noise generator caused side
efects such as ‘increased heart rate, nervousness, and arou-
sal,’ thereby providing participants with an alternate external
source of any discomfort. Participants in this condition were
then played sample tones by the experimenter, which in real-
ity were three tones played discretely from an iPod. Partici-
pants assigned to the no misatribution available condition
were told nothing about the subliminal noise generator there-
fore not providing them with an alternate, external source of
situational arousal. The subliminal noise generator was pres-
ent in the room in both conditions and in reality did not pro-
duce any sounds.
At the end of the study session,al participants completed
a ‘departmental equipment inventory’ designed to test
the effectiveness of the misatribution manipulation. To
ensure that al participants could answer the item, including
those not in the misatribution condition, the research assis-
tant handed out a half-page survey and explained ‘now that
you have completed the experiment, the primary investiga-
tor and the Departmental Review Board would like to col-
lect your thoughts and experiences regarding the session.’
The survey included filer itemsincluding questions about
any noise they might have heard and other elements in the
room (e.g., their computer) as wel as a target item about the
black box generator. Participants responded to the item,
‘I feel the subliminal noise generator made me feel ner-
vous,’ on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to7
(strongly agree).
Motivation measures.Two sets of measures tapped partici-
pants’ motivations regarding the ‘promotion task’ (essay
writing). First, to assess interest, the survey measure of task
ratings was adapted from Smith, Sansone, and White’s
(2007) study, including 5 items (a¼.91) such as ‘I would
describe this task as very interesting’ and ‘This task was fun
to do.’ Al items were rated on a Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree), and items
were averaged so that higher scores indicated higher levels
of each motivation.
Second, the two performance goal subscales of the Achieve-
ment Goal Questionnaire–Revised (Eliot & Murayama, 2008)
were used to measure performance-avoidance goals (e.g.,
‘Ijustwantedtoavoiddoingpoorlyonthistask’)and
performance-approach goals (e.g., ‘My goal for the task was
to do beter than most of the students’). Each item was rated
from 1 (not at al true of me)to7(very true of me), and items
for both the avoidance (3 items;a¼.78) and approach
(3 items;a¼.87) subscales were averaged so that higher
scores indicated higher levels of each motivation. Mastery
goals were also assessed with 3 items but did not show any
meaningful differences and are thus not reported.
Performance measures.We colected two measures of parti-
cipants’ performance: self-perceived performance and judges’
ratings of the quality of participants’ essays. First, embedded
within a larger survey that contained 10 filer items, 4 items
assessed participants’ perception of the quality of the essay
they had writen. Using a scale from 1(not at al)to6
(extremely), participants rated: ‘When others read your essay,
how qualified do you think they wil rate the applicant?’
‘When others read your essay, how competent do you
think they wil rate the applicant?’ ‘How wel do you think
you performed on your essay today?’ and ‘How wel do you
think you promoted in your essay today?’ Adapted from
Moss-Racusin and Rudman (2010), the internal consistency
reliability (a¼.80) of this measure was sound.
Second, similar to procedures used by Moss-Racusin and
Rudman (2010), a new sample of 44 introductory psychology
students (60.1%women;Mage¼20.04 years; 89.7%White)
served as naive raters to determine the amount of scholarship
money waranted by the quality of each promotion essay.
Participants were told they would be rating several personal
essays writen by other students applying for a US$5,000
scholarship. Participants received a description of the scho-
larship for which the essays were writen, six randomly
selected essays, and six essay scholarship rating sheets. In
order to mask the modesty norm violation condition, the
norm not violated (other promotion) essays were changed
to first person. For example, the sentence ‘She is very suc-
cessful’ became ‘I am very successful.’ Participants were
told to rate the essays starting at the top of the pile and to
move on only after completely rating the previous essay. The
essays each participant-judge received were counterbalanced
to control for order efects.
Judges responded to the item ‘Given a scholarship amount
between $0 and $5000 how much do you think the applicant
wil receive?’ Each essay writen in this study received
at least two (and sometimes three) independent dolar amount
judgments. Akin to a within-subjects design, with essay as the
within variable and scholarship rating as the dependent vari-
able, the goal was to get an average dolar amount from at
least two new (naive) participants as to the scholarship
amount the essay waranted. The average dolar amount
awarded resulted in a data set with the 75 essays as units.
No two judges rated the same set of six essays. This overal
mean dolar amount served to measure the quality of each
participant’s essay performance.1
Potential control measures.We also explored the possible
influence of the variables on task value and effort. To
measure task value, 3 items (a¼.83, e.g. ‘I think this
was a valuable task’) from Smith et al.’s (2007) study
were interspersedwithin the same survey as the interest
items detailed above. These items were rated on a
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to7
(strongly agree) and were averaged so that higher scores
indicated higher perceivedvalue of the promotion task.
As an estimate of effort on the task, the number of words
participants wrote for their essay was counted using a
word count application.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
The response to the item measuring the efectiveness of the
misatribution manipulation was submited to a 2 (modesty
norm violated vs. not violated) 2 (misatribution available
vs. not available) analysis of variance (ANOVA). As
expected, results yielded a significant main efect of misatri-
bution condition,F(1, 74)¼21.43,p< .001,Zp2¼.23. Par-
ticipants in the misatribution available condition (M¼2.81,
SE¼ .17) reported that the subliminal noise generator
made them feel significantly more nervous compared to the
misatribution not available condition (M¼1.67,SE¼.17),
indicating that the manipulation was successful.
Analyses on our two exploratory variables showed no def-
icits in task value among women who did and did not violate
the modesty norm under normal conditions. Instead, results
showed only a significant main efect of modesty norm vio-
lation condition,F(1, 70)¼8.42,p¼.005,Zp2¼.11, such
that across misatribution conditions, people valued the task
more when self-promoting (M¼4.89,SE¼.19) compared
to when other-promoting (M¼4.04,SE¼.22). We return
to this point in the discussion. Analyses on the exploratory
variable of word count as a possible measure of efort yielded
a significant interaction between misatribution condition and
modesty norm violation condition,F(1, 71)¼5.59,p¼.02,
Zp2¼.14, such that women who violated the modesty norm
wrote somewhat fewer words compared to women who did
not violate the modesty norm,F(1, 73)¼3.84,p¼.054,
Zp2¼.05. However, this diference was only marginaly sig-
nificant and quite smal. Because none of these efects are in
directions consistent with our hypotheses, neither task value
nor word count can account for our findings and thus were not
included in the tests of our hypotheses.
Table 1 displays the corelations among al our measures.
Because several of the motivational variables were signifi-
cantly and positively corelated with each other (albeit not
highly corelated), an overarching 2 (modesty norm violated
vs. not violated) 2 (misatribution available vs. not avail-
able) multivariate analysis of variance was conducted using
the three motivational dependent measures. The predicted sig-
nificant interaction emerged across the three motivation
measures,F(3, 67)¼13.79,p< .001, Wilks’sL¼.62,¼.22,
Zp2¼.38. As such, we felt justified in conducting separate
univariate ANOVAs on each motivation measure.
Hypothesis Testing
For our overal analyses exploring motivation and perfor-
mance, we conducted separate 2 (modesty norm violated
vs. not violated) 2 (misatribution available vs. not
available) ANOVAs on each measure, expecting to find
Table 1.Correlations Among the Dependent Measures.
1 2  3  4 5 6
Potential control variables
1. Task value —
2. Essay word count .24* —
Motivation
3. Interest .48*** .19 —
4. Performance avoidance goals .04 .07 .12 —
5. Performance approach goals .30** .22 .37*** .36** —
Performance
6. Perceived performance .30** .25* .20 .02 .29* —
7. Scholarship amount awarded .19 .11 .00 .31** .03 .11
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
significant interactions. Across misatribution conditions,
no main efect of modesty norm violation condition eme-
rged on the motivational variables (experience of interest,
performance-avoidance goal adoption, or performance-
approach goal adoption) or on the two performance variables
(self-perceived performance and judged promotion quality).
Instead, results yielded the predicted significant interaction
between misatribution available condition and modesty norm
violation condition for the experience of interest,F(1, 70)¼
18.76,p<.001,Zp2¼.21; for performance-avoidance goal
adoption,F(1, 71)¼5.22,p¼.02,Zp2¼ .07, and for
performance-approach goal adoption,F(1, 71)¼ 6.29,
p¼.01,Zp2¼.08. Analyses similarly yielded a significant
interaction between misatribution condition and modesty
norm violation condition for perceived performance,F(1,
74)¼6.84,p¼.01,Zp2¼.08, and judged promotion
quality in dolars,F(1, 73)¼4.73,p¼.03,Zp2¼.06.
With these omnibus test results establishing significant
interactions for al three motivation measures and both
performance measures in mind, we next report the results
organized around our two hypotheses. We used simple
effect analyses to interpret any meaningful differences
across our four conditions.
Hypothesis 1: Replication of the efects of modesty norm violation.
Our first hypothesis focused on replicating prior findings of
violating the modesty norm whereby, under normal condi-
tions (i.e., no misatribution available), women would report
lower motivation and perform worse when promoting the self
than when promoting another person. As seen in Table 2
(under the Misatribution Unavailable column), folow-up
simple efect analyses decomposing the overal significant
interaction for women’s motivation previously reported
showed that,when no misatribution was available, our first
hypothesis was partialy confirmed. As predicted, violating
the modesty norm by promoting the self resulted in women
experiencing significantly less interest,F(1, 70)¼ 7.43,
p¼ .008,Zp2¼ .10, and endorsing significantly more
performance-avoidance goals,F(1, 71)¼7.46,p¼.008,
Zp2¼.10, compared to women who did not violate the mod-
esty norm. Surprisingly, under these normal conditions with
no misatribution available, no significant diference emerged
between groups violating the modesty norm or not on
performance-approach goal adoption.
Turning to women’s promotion performance, folow-up
simple efect analyses showed that in line with our hypoth-
esis, under normal conditions when a misatribution source
was unavailable, women who violated the modesty norm per-
ceived they had performed significantly worse than nonvio-
lating women,F(1, 74)¼8.19,p¼.005,Zp2¼.10 (see
Table 2 under the Misatribution Unavailable column).
Furthermore, essays writen by self-promoting women were
awarded significantly less scholarship money than essays writ-
tenbyother-promotingwomen,F(1, 73)¼6.80,p¼.01,
Zp2¼.09 (see Table 2).
Hypothesis 2: Misatribution availability.To test our second
hypothesis, we examined the significant overal interactions
reported previously for evidence that when atribution of sit-
uation arousal to an external source was available, the defi-
ciencies we found in motivation and performance among
women who violated the modesty norm under normal condi-
tions would be eliminated or reversed. Now focusing on the
ful 2 2 interaction, we compared women who violated the
modesty norm to those who did not violate the norm when a
misatribution was both unavailable and available.
Table 2.Means Across Dependent Measures for Modesty Norm Misatribution Conditions.
Dependent Measure Misatribution Unavailable Misatribution Available
Modesty norm M SE M SE
Motivation
Interest
Violated 2.85b .27 3.88a .28Not violated 4.03c .34 2.48b .30Performance avoidance goal adoption
Violated 4.35b .20 3.56a .20Not violated 3.51a .23 3.68a .21Performance approach goal adoption
Violated 3.38b .22 4.25a .22Not violated 3.69b .26 3.37b .24Performance
Perceived performance
Violated 3.66b .16 4.29a .17Not violated 4.37a .19 4.08a .18Judged performance
Violated $1675.04b 242.53 $2611.91a 253.82Not violated $2662.60a 290.78 $2433.82a 282.10
Note. Means within each dependent measure not sharing a subscript difer atp< .05 using simple efect analyses.
Hypothesis 2a: Closing the modesty norm violation gap.As
shown in Table 2, folow-up simple efect analyses showed
that when the subliminal noise generator was available to
misatribute any arousal, violating the modesty norm (by pro-
moting the self) resulted in women reporting significantly
more interest for the task compared to those women who did
not violate the modesty norm,F(1, 70)¼11.69,p¼.001,Zp2
¼.14. Likewise, women who violated the norm with a mis-
atribution available endorsed significantly more
performance-approach goals,F(1, 71)¼7.29,p¼.009,
Zp2¼.09, and adopted similar levels of performance avoid-
ance goals compared to women who did not violate the mod-
esty norm,F(1, 71)¼0.20,p¼.66,Zp2¼.00. Thus, for both
positive forms of motivation (interest and performance
approach goal adoption), having a misatribution source
reversed the deficit motivation expressed by women who vio-
lated the modesty norm to make self-promoting more moti-
vating that other-promoting. For performance avoidance
goals, the former modesty norm violation gap was closed,
with both paterns for motivational measures confirming
Hypothesis 2a.
Analyses on performance also showed support for
Hypothesis 2a by closing the modesty norm violation gap.
When a misatribution source was available, the previously
found diferences between self- and other-promotion on per-
ceived performance and judged promotion quality were elim-
inated. As shown in Table 2, women who violated the
modesty norm perceived equaly good performance and
received equaly high scholarship funding (see Figure 1)
when a misatribution was available. These results confirm
that having a misatribution available to ofset situational
arousal aleviates (or even improves) the motivational and
performance diferences between those who violate the mod-
esty norm and those who do not violate the norm.
Hypothesis 2b: Modesty norm violation and misatribution.
Next, we wanted to test whether our misatribution avail-
ability intervention could improve the motivation and
performance for women who violated the modesty norm.
Results confirmed this hypothesis. Compared to women vio-
lating the modesty norm under normal conditions, women
promoting the self with a misatribution available were signif-
icantly more likely to express interest in the task,F(1, 70)¼
7.03,p¼.01,Zp2¼.09, to endorse fewer performance-
avoidance goals,F(1, 71)¼8.03,p¼.006,Zp2¼.10, and
to adopt more performance-approach goals for the task,
F(1,71)¼7.71,p¼.007,Zp2¼.10.
Performance was also enhanced for women violating the
modesty norm with a misatribution available, compared to
when it was unavailable. As seen in Table 2, folow-up
simple efect analyses showed promoting the self with a
misatribution available resulted in significantly beter self-
perceptions of performance compared to when no misatribu-
tion was available,F(1,74)¼7.28,p¼.009,Zp2¼.09, and
resulted in women receiving more scholarship money from
the judges,F(1,73)¼7.12,p¼.009,Zp2¼.09. Thus,
Hypothesis 2b was confirmed across al three motivational
and both performance measures.
Prediction 2c: Modesty norm non-violation and misatribution.
Finaly, we wanted to examine whether the availability
of the misatribution influenced the motivation and perfor-
mance (one way or the other) for women who did not vio-
late the modesty norm. Assuming that no situational arousal
comes from engaging in a modesty-norm consistent task
(promoting another person), we did not expect any influence
of misatribution availability. As shown in Table 2, for
women who did not violate the modesty norm, misatribution
availability did not change the adoption of performance-
avoidance goals or the adoption of performance-approach
goals. Surprisingly, other-promoting women did report sig-
nificantly less interest for the task when a misatribution was
available (vs. not available),F(1,70)¼11.77,p¼.001,
Zp2¼.14. We return to this point in the Discussion sec-
tion. Performance was also largely unaffected by misatri-
bution availability for women who did not violate the
modesty norm. Indeed, misattribution condition did not
meaningfuly change perceived performance or judged
quality of the essay when the modesty norm was not vio-
lated. With the exception of reported interest, the results
generaly suggest that the availability of an external
source to misatribute situational arousal did not help or
hurt the motivation or performance of women who did not
violate the modesty norm.
Discussion
Our results replicated and extended past work on the negative
efects women experience when violating the modesty norm
versus not under normal conditions (when no external source
was available to atribute situational arousal). In line with
Hypothesis 1, these self-promoting women experienced less
interest, were more likely to adopt performance-avoidance
Figure 1.The amount of scholarship money awarded in dolars by
student judges (judged performance) across the four cels of the
2 2 design crossing modesty norm violation with misattribution
availability.
goals, had poorer perceptions of their own performance, and
their essays were judged lower in quality compared to women
who promoted on behalf of another. Encouragingly, results
showed that we were able to close this modesty norm viola-
tion gap with misatribution availability. When women who
violated the modesty norm in the presence of a subliminal
noise generator that they were told could be a source of dis-
comfort, the motivational and performance diferences
between those who violated the modesty norm or not were
eliminated or even reversed. What is more, these positive
efects of the misatribution availability were evident when
comparing women who violated the modesty norm under nor-
mal conditions with those who violated the norm with the
misatribution available. The positive efects of the misatri-
bution available for women who violated the modesty norm
came largely without consequence to the women who did not
violate the modesty norm (albeit with one exception, dis-
cussed below).
Taken together then, our results suggest that the availabil-
ity of a misatribution source for situational arousal improved
the promotion experience and the quality of promotion for
women who violated the modesty norm. Importantly, our
results also showed that women who violated the modesty
norm and were given a misatribution arousal source reported
greater interest in the promotion task compared to those not
given a misatribution source. Improving women’s momen-
tary self-promotion performance is important to be sure, but
enhancing women’s interest is key because such intrinsic
motivational experiences could potentialy result in more
long-term motivation to engage in other self-promotion tasks
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1978; Thoman et al., 2013). To our
knowledge, ours is the first work to demonstrate that violat-
ing the modesty norm impacts the experience of interest in
self-promotion.
Greater task interest typicaly depends on the type of
achievement goals adopted during task engagement (Eliot &
Harackiewicz, 1996). Indeed, our data showed that women
adopted more performance-avoidance goals when self-
promoting under normal conditions and adopted more
performance-approach goals when self-promoting with a
misatribution available. Although not examined as a med-
iator (because goals were assessed folowing the promotion
task), future research would benefit from understanding
how performance-goal adoption, especialy performance-
avoidance goals, might influence self-promotion experi-
ences. We had predicted that women who violated the
modesty norm under normal conditions would adopt
performance-approach goals less often, but this was not the
case. Perhaps the nature of thetask instructions (to write
an essay to try to win a scholarship) subtly triggered
performance-approach goals to‘dowelcomparedtooth-
ers’ among al participants, washing out the effects. Never-
theless, when a misatribution was available, performance
approach goals were adopted more often by women who
violated the modesty norm compared to those who did not
violate the norm suggesting that these goals are important
to consider.
As laid out at the onset, the act of self-promotion is a vio-
lation of the modesty norm. Thus, we explored the possibility
that task value and efort (as indexed by number of words
writen) would also be negatively impacted when violating
the modesty norm. Yet, under normal conditions (i.e., when
no misatribution source was available), the perceived value
of the task remained the same no mater if the modesty norm
was violated or not. Moreover, colapsing across the two mis-
atribution conditions, women who promoted the self rated
the task higher in value compared to women who promoted
other people. It is possible that the nature of the task (a scho-
larship essay) is seen as more personaly valuable generaly
speaking because of the potential for direct financial gain.
Certainly, decades of work on the ‘self-referencing’ efect
and ‘ego-involving’ task orientations suggest that self-
related tasks are often processed at a deeper level and are
viewed as more important and interesting (Butler, 1987;
Symons & Johnson, 1997). Stil, despite seeing the higher
value of the self-promotion task, these women were less
likely to enjoy the task and sufered performance decrements
compared to women who did not violate the modesty norm
under normal conditions.
Furthermore, our results showed some negative efects of
the subliminal noise generator such that women who other-
promoted when the misatribution source was available
reported less task interest compared to women who other-
promoted without a misatribution available. It was predicted
that other-promoting would not be afected by the availability
of a misatribution because other-promoting does not violate
the modesty norm. One possibility for this finding is that
the misatribution source muted any positive feelings people
might have when writing about the accomplishments of a
friend, decreasing any ‘basking in reflected glory’ afiliation
experiences (Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986). However, we
interpret these results with caution, given that no other mea-
sure showed these unexpected results.
Potential Sources of Situational Arousal
Taken together, results of the current project showed that
violating the modesty norm can act as a barrier to women’s
self-promotion and that, under normal circumstances (when
no misatribution source for any discomfort is provided),
self-promotion is of lower perceived and actual quality;
results in greater performance-avoidance goal adoption;
and diminishes the experienceof interest. However, when
women self-promote under conditions that provide an
opportunity to misatribute anysituational arousal, the gap
between violating the modesty norm and not violating
the modesty norm was eliminated (to similar levels of
performance-avoidance goal adoption as wel as perceived
and actual performance) or even reversed (higher interest
and performance-approach goal adoption). This evidence
suggests that, under particular situational arousal-reducing
circumstances, women are able to promote as wel for them-
selves as they do for others.
There are a number of possible explanations for these find-
ings. For example, decades of research on Festinger’s cogni-
tive dissonance theory shows that when people behave in a
manner inconsistent with their own beliefs, they experience
discomfort (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; see also Cooper
et al., 1978; Eliot & Devine, 1994; Harmon-Jones, Brehm,
Greenberg, Simon, & Nelson, 1996). Cognitive dissonance
occurs any time a person has two psychologicaly conflicting
cognitions, such as behaving in a manner inconsistent with
opinions, or as we argue here, when behaving in a manner
inconsistent with gender norms. Thus, women in our study
may have experienced arousal because they were asked to
self-promote and such behavior is inconsistent with the mod-
esty norm.
Another possible explanation is that women who self-
promote experience fear-of-backlash (for a review, see
Rudman et al., 2012), and this backlash fear manifests
as situational arousal. As outlined in the backlash avoidance
model (Moss-Racusin & Rudman, 2010), women experience
wory and fear over the (often very real) ‘social and eco-
nomic penalties’ associated with violating gender norms
(Brescol, 2011; Rudman, 1998). This fear of backlash
may manifest as situational arousal, although this connec-
tion remains for future research to document. Worry or
fear over confirming a stereotype is yet another alternative
explanation for the source of situational arousal experi-
enced by women who self-promoted in our study. Women
who worry about confirming a stereotype, ironicaly,
underperform and experience reduced task motivation (for
reviews, see Nguyen & Ryan, 2008; Thoman et al., 2013).
Although the role of anxiety in stereotype threat effects on
performance is uncertain (see Smith, 2004, for a review),
there is converging evidence that stereotype threat creates
generalized situational arousal (Johns et al., 2005; O’Brien &
Crandal, 2003) that may manifest as physiological arousal
(Croizet et al., 2004). Thus, to the extent that women who
self-promoted were concerned about confirming gender
stereotypes, stereotype threat may have triggered situational
arousal. Our curent data cannot speak to the nature of the
situational arousal, but no mater the explanation (e.g., cog-
nitive dissonance, fear of backlash, and stereotype threat),
our data show when a source for any uncomfortable arousal
was provided, this misatribution resulted in increased pro-
motion success.
Practice Implications
Our results add to the literature that should give search com-
mitees and award commitees pause in relying heavily on
self-generated cover leters and essays in making determina-
tions of merit because women may undersel themselves fol-
lowing societal norms associated with modesty gender norms
(Moss-Racusin & Rudman, 2010). One strength of our proj-
ect was in testing misatribution as an intervention; we found
the availability of an object (in our case, a subliminal noise
generator) to misatribute any situational discomfort closed
the gap between those women who did and did not violate the
modesty norm. Admitedly, a fake subliminal noise generator
would be dificult to implement in practice. However, teling
people that their computer screen or the cubical in which they
are working can cause discomfort are other possible external
objects that might be used to atribute situational arousal. The
next step is to feret out the short- and long-term benefits of
these and other misatribution strategies. For example,
women who are taught to blame gender stereotypes for any
discomfort they experience during a math test perform beter
(Johns et al., 2005). Perhaps women who are taught to blame
modesty norms would similarly show an improvement in
self-promotion. Along these lines, ‘normalizing’ self-
promotion as ‘part of the job’ (particularly in certain
domains that are male-dominated, such as science and math)
could result in an improvement not only to a woman’s self-
promotion experience but also her feelings of belonging and
motivation for the job itself (for a similar ‘normalizing’
intervention strategy regarding efort expenditures, see
Smith, Lewis, Hawthorne, & Hodges, 2013).
Limitations and Next Steps
It is certainly possible that al people, including men, experi-
ence situational arousal when promoting the self. Although
our focus here was on women, future research wil benefit
from such a gender comparison. However, the modesty norm
is particular to women’s gender roles (Bronstein, 2006);
because men’s gender roles include traits such as arogance
and assertiveness (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010), thus, it is
unlikely that the modesty norm would similarly limit men’s
self-promotion. Nevertheless, men who do violate gender
norms associated with agency experience backlash by others.
For example, when a male candidate answered interview
questions in a modest manner, he sufered interpersonal con-
sequences (by observers) for violating the gender norm that
men should be agentic (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). Future
research would also do wel to include cross-cultural compar-
isons to determine the generalizability of the efects of violat-
ing the modesty norm (and ways to ofset it) because, in some
cultures (e.g., Japan), men and women alike are expected to
be modest and humble (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
To our knowledge, our research is the first to consider
women’s self-promotion motivational experiences and per-
formance tendencies using a misatribution paradigm. Past
work assumed women were capable of self-promotion because
of their ability to promote another person (Moss-Racusin &
Rudman, 2010); thus, the deficiency is assumed to not be in
promotion ability per se. Our data are the first known to clearly
demonstrate that women’s self-promotion can be just as high
in quality as other-promotion, and, what is more, that the
promotion experience can be positive. When provided with a
source to misatribute discomfort they might experience while
self-promoting, women reported enhanced motivation and per-
ceived their performance to be beter, and their essays were
awarded more scholarship money by independent judges. This
is important considering that women must self-promote in
order to acquire educational and career advancement. The
gender wage gap, for example, persists, and it is possible that
the uncomfortable arousal women experience when self-
promoting is contributing to this gap. If self-promotion is nec-
essary and women are uncomfortable doing so then, without a
situational intervention, their applications may be viewed as
lower in quality and thus women may be passed over for pro-
motions and raises. Our data ofer insight into one situational
option for helping women self-promote to advance in their pro-
fessions or negotiate beter wages or start-up packages.
It is imperative that, as scholars identify ways to help
women self-promote, there is a simultaneous efort to combat
the very real backlash that self-promoting women face
(Bowles & Babcock, 2012; Brescol, 2011; Moss-Racusin
et al., 2010; Rudman et al., 2012). Perhaps there is a threshold
for a ‘proper’ amount of self-promotion that would both ben-
efit woman’s educational and career success and not result in
social or economic sanctions. Or perhaps there are ways to
standardized self-promotion tasks (e.g., with clear question/
answer options) or other ways to gain the same information
(e.g., require leters of reference instead of self-generated let-
ters—albeit leters of reference can fal subject to gender bias
as wel; Schmader, Whitehead, & Wysocki, 2007). Indeed,
research on reframing task instructions in a way that is mod-
esty norm consistent (e.g., as an opportunity to ‘politely ask’
versus ‘negotiate’) enhances the likelihood women wil
initiate a negotiation (Smal et al., 2007).
Conclusion
The curent findings suggest that women experience uncom-
fortable arousal when promoting the self because such self-
promotion violates gender norms for modesty. American reli-
gious leader Howard Hunter (1997, p. 123) once stated in his
teachings that:‘The girl who chooses to be modest chooses to
be respected. A boy who is honest with himself wil admit
that he likes a girl who is modest in speech, conduct, and
dress. Modesty is one of the great virtues.’ Such messages
about gender and modesty are conveyed in many ways
and are ingrained in American culture (Bronstein, 2006;
Budworth & Mann, 2010; Rudman, 1998). We demonstrated
that, without providing for the misatribution of situational
arousal (e.g., discomfort) that resulted from violation of the
modesty norm, women may resolve their discomfort by being
modest and downplaying their own accomplishments. With a
situational intervention, however, women can misatribute
the source of situational arousal and are then free to promote
themselves. Indeed, bragging ought to be a ‘right’ aforded
to everyone.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to the research assistants in the Motivation and
Diversity Lab for their assistance with data colection.
Authors’ Notes
Parts of study served as the second author’s Women and Gender
Studies Thesis.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the folowing financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study
was supported in part by a Montana State University Undergraduate
Scholars Program Grant.
Note
1. This methodology was borowed from Moss-Racusin and Rud-
man (2010, study 2), with the only exception that we masked the
self- versus other-promotion nature of the condition. Among the
44 new participant ‘scholarship judges,’ because no two partici-
pants ever rated the same set of six essays, it is not appropriate to
compute interater reliability. The goal was to get an average rat-
ing from at least two new participants regarding the scholarship
award money the essay waranted, similar to how an actual panel
of judges might review applications for a scholarship. This pro-
cedure is akin to a repeated measures design with essay as the
within-subjects variable and scholarship rating as the dependent
variable.
References
Alen, J., Gervais, S. J., & Smith, J. L. (2013). Sit big to eat big: The
interaction of body posture and body concern on restrained eat-
ing.Psychology of Women Quarterly,37, 325–336.
Alen, J., & Smith, J. L. (2011). The influence of sexuality
stereotypes on men’s experience of gender-role incongruence.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity,12, 77–96. doi:10.1037/
a0019678
Amanatulah, E. T., & Moris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender
roles: Gender diferences in assertive negotiating are mediated
by women’s fear of backlash and atenuated when negotiating
on behalf of others.Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,98, 256–267. doi:10.1037/a0017094
Ben-Zeev, T., Fein, S., & Inzlicht, M. (2005). Arousal and stereo-
type threat.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,41,
174–181. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.007
Blakemore, J. E. O. (2003). Children’s beliefs about violating gender
norms: Boys shouldn’t look like girls, and girls shouldn’t act like
boys.Sex Roles,48, 411–419. doi:10.1023/A:1023574427720
Boiche, J., Plaza, M., Chalabaev, A., Guilet, E., & Sarazin, P.
(2014). Social antecedents and consequences of sport gender
stereotypes during adolescence.Psychology of Women Quar-
terly,38(2), 259–274. doi:10.1177/0361684313505844
Bowles, H. R., & Babcock, L. (2012). How can women escape the
compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one
answer.Psychology of Women Quarterly,37, 80–96. doi:10.
1177/0361684312455524
Brescol, V. L. (2011). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power
and volubility in organizations.Administrative Science Quar-
terly,56, 622–641. doi:10.1177/0001839212439994
Brescol, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get
ahead? Status conferal, gender, and expression of emotion in the
workplace.Psychological Science,19, 268–275. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-9280.2008.02079.x
Brodish, A. B., & Devine, P. G. (2009). The role of performance-
avoidance goals and wory in mediating the relationship between
stereotype threat and performance.Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology,45, 180–185.
Bronstein, P. (2006).The family environment: Where gender role
socialization begins. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Budworth, M., & Mann, S. L. (2010). Becoming a leader: The chal-
lenge of modesty for women.Journal of Management Develop-
ment,29, 177–186. doi:10.1108/02621711011019314
Butler, R. (1987). Task involving and ego involving properties of eva-
luation: Efects of diferent feedback conditions on motivational
perceptions, interest, and performance.Journal of Educational
Psychology,79, 474–482. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474
Condry, J., & Condry, S. (1976). Sex differences: A study of the
eye of the beholder.Child Development,47,812–819.
Retrieved from htp:/search.proquest.com/docview/616116482?
accountid¼28148
Cooper, J. (1998). Unlearning cognitive dissonance: Toward an
understanding of the development of dissonance.Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,34, 562–575. doi:10.1006/
jesp.1998.1365
Cooper, J., Zanna, M. P., & Taves, P. A. (1978). Arousal as a neces-
sary condition for atitude change folowing induced compliance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36, 1101–1106.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.10.1101
Crawford, M. (1988). Gender, age, and the social evaluation of
assertion.Behavior Modification,12, 549–564. doi:10.1177/
01454455880124004
Croizet, J., Despre´s, G., Gauzins, M., Huguet, P., Leyens, J., &
Me´ot, A. (2004). Stereotype threat undermines intelectual per-
formance by triggering a disruptive mental load.Personality and
Social Psychology Buletin,30, 721–731.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Intrinsic rewards and emergent moti-
vation. In M. R. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.),The hidden costs of
reward(pp. 205–216). Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K.
(2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look
at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics careers. Psychological Science,21, 1051–1057.
doi:10.1177/0956797610377342
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory
of sex diferences and similarities: A curent appraisal. In T. Eckes
&H.M.Trautner(Eds.),The developmental social psychology of
gender(pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of
cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 382–394.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382
Eliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoid-
ance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational
analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70,
461–475.
Eliot, A., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal frame-
work.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80, 501–519.
Eliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of
achievement goals: Critique, ilustration, and application.Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology,100, 613–628. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.100.3.613
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of
forced compliance.The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology,58, 203–210. doi:10.1037/h0041593
Finney, S. J., Pieper, S. L., & Baron, K. E. (2004). Examining the
psychometric properties of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire
in a general academic context.Educational and Psychological
Measurement,64, 365–383.
Gould, R. J., & Slone, C. G. (1982). The ‘feminine modesty’ efect:
A self-presentational interpretation of sex diferences in causal
atribution.Personality and Social Psychology Buletin,8,
477–485. doi:10.1177/0146167282083014
Harackiewicz, J., Baron, K., Tauer, J., Carter, S., & Eliot, A. (2000).
Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Pre-
dicting interest and performance over time.Journal of Educational
Psychology,92, 316–330. doi:10.1037/0022-0663,92.2.316
Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nel-
son, D. E. (1996). Evidence that the production of aversive con-
sequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 5–16. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.5
Horgan, T., & Smith, J. L. (2006). Interpersonal reasons for interper-
sonal perceptions: Gender-incongruent purpose goals and non-
verbal judgment accuracy.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,30,
127–140. doi:10.1007/s10919-006-0012-4
Hunter, H. W. (Ed.). (1997).The teachings of Howard W. Hunter.
Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft.
Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intelectual envi-
ronment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-
solving deficits in the presence of males.Psychological Science,
11, 365–371. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00272
Johns,M.,Schmader,T.,&Martens,A.(2005).Knowingishalf
the batle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving
women’s math performance. Psychological Science,16,
175–179. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00799.x
Leaper, C., Breed, L., Hofman, L., & Perlman, C. A. (2002). Var-
iations in the gender-stereotyped content of children’s television
cartoons across genres.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
32, 1653–1662. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02767.x
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Impli-
cations for cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological
Review,98, 224–253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Moss-Racusin, C., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When
men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash
against modest men.Psychology of Men & Masculinity,11,
140–151. doi:10.1037/a0018093
Moss-Racusin, C., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). Disruptions in
women’s self-promotion: The backlash avoidance model.
Psychology of Women Quarterly,34, 186–202. doi:10.1111/j.
1471-6402.2010.01561.x
Nguyen, H.-H. H., & Ryan, A. M. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat
afect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis
of experimental evidence.Journal of Applied Psychology,93,
1314–1334. doi:10.1037/a0012702
O’Brien, L. T., & Crandal, C. S. (2003). Stereotype threat and
arousal: Effects on women’s math performance.Personality
and Social Psychology Buletin,29, 782–789. doi:10.1177/
0146167203029006010
Olson, J. M. (1988). Misatribution, preparatory information, and
speech anxiety.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 758–767. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.758
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women:
The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression man-
agement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74,
629–645. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and
backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women
of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers.Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,77, 1004–1010. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.77.5.1004
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes
and backlash toward agentic women.Journal of Social Issues,
57, 743–762. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00239
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E.
(2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory.
In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.),Advances in experimental social
psychology(Vol. 45, pp. 167–227). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Schmader, T., Whitehead, J., & Wysocki, V. H. (2007). A linguistic
comparison of leters of recommendation for male and female
chemistry and biochemistry job applicants.Sex Roles,57,
509–514. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9291-4
Shaw, J. I., & Skolnick, P. (1973). An investigation of relative pre-
ference for consistency motivation.European Journal of Social
Psychology,3, 271–280. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420030306
Smal, D. A., Gelfand, M., Babcock, L., & Getman, H. (2007).
Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender
and framing on the initiation of negotiation.Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,4, 600–613. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.93.4.600
Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat:
A review of mediational variables and new performance goal
directions.Educational Psychology Review,16, 177–206. doi:
10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034020.20317.89
Smith,J.L.,Lewis,K.L.,Hawthorne,L.,&Hodges,S.D.(2013).
When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and
motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of
effort expenditure concerns.Personality and Social Psychology
Buletin,39, 3–15. doi:10.1177/0146167212468332
Smith, J. L., Sansone, C., & White, P. H. (2007). The stereotyped
task engagement process: The role of interest and achievement
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,99, 99–114.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.99
Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly
activated, explicitly activated, and nulified stereotypes on math-
ematical performance: It’s not just a woman’s issue.Sex Roles,
47, 179–191.
Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after
group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cuting
of reflected failure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,51, 382–388. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.382
Symons, C., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference efect in
memory: A meta analysis.Psychological Buletin,12, 371–394.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371
Thoman, D. B., Smith, J. L., Brown, E. R., Chase, J., & Lee, J. Y. K.
(2013). Beyond performance: A motivational experiences model
of stereotype threat.Educational Psychology Review,25,
211–243. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9219-1
Urdan, T. (Ed.). (1999).Advances in motivation and achievement:
Motivation in context(Vol. 11). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Wade, M. E. (2001). Women and the salary negotiation: The costs of
self-advocacy.Psychology of Women Quarterly,25, 65–76. doi:
10.1111/1471-6402.00008
Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). Dissonance and the pil: An atri-
bution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,29, 703–709. doi:
10.1037/h0036651