Society & Culture - Posted by Steve Manas-Rutgers on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:55 - 3 Comments 
(3 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
(3 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5) Loading ...Why modest guys might not get the job
In a series of staged job interviews, modesty was viewed as a sign of weakness, a low-status character trait for males that could adversely affect their employability or earnings potential. Modesty in women, however, was not viewed negatively nor was it linked to status. (Credit: iStockphoto)
RUTGERS (US)—A new study finds a backlash against men who act modestly in a job interview.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
According to Corinne Moss-Racusin, a doctoral candidate in psychology at Rutgers, applicants in staged interviews were judged equally competent, but the “modest” males were less liked—a sign of social backlash.
Modesty was viewed as a sign of weakness, a low-status character trait for males that could adversely affect their employability or earnings potential. Modesty in women, however, was not viewed negatively nor was it linked to status.
The study findings are reported in the journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity.
“For men and women, there are things they must and must not be,” Moss-Racusin says. “Women must be communal and other-oriented, but they must not be dominant. Historically and cross-culturally, men have been stereotyped as more agentic, that is, more independent and self-focused than women.”
In the study, 132 female and 100 male student volunteers (who earned partial academic credit for their psychology course) viewed videotaped, 15-minute job interviews of either males or females All the applicants were paid actors rehearsed to deliver similar, “modest” responses for the gender-neutral position that required strong technical abilities and social skills.
The researchers sought to determine which gender stereotype promote backlash.
“Women are allowed to be weak while this trait is strongly prohibited in men,” Moss-Racusin says. “By contrast, dominance is reserved for men and prohibited for women. Thus, gender stereotypes are comprised of four sets of rules and expectations for behavior consist of both ‘shoulds’ and ‘should nots’ for each gender.”
The researchers’ prediction that modest male applicants would face hiring discrimination was not supported, however, and she speculates that because men’s status is higher than women’s, meek men are afforded the benefit of the doubt and are less likely to encounter hiring discrimination than dominant women.
More news from Rutgers: http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel
Please wait
3 Comments
Rick
Houtoog
I retired in my early 50′s having made enough money in the business world to be financially independent. One of my deliberate strategies in my career was to be modest. Despite what the Rutgers researcher might think, being modest gives one many advantages. I found that it often led to people underestimating me, to their own peril. This can be very useful in negotiation. The test for good management is whether you can look behind the modesty and find the real person. You do not have to shout and perform to be effective.
As we better understand the proverb that STYLE MAKES A MAN .It is 100% true at least for now days. As we normally distinguish one person from other the way they have their dressing style
1. The modest men are less liked than *what* control group? Modest women only? So how are we supposed to know that the men were liked less because they are *modest*, and not because they are men, or something else?
What we need is a control with men of roughly equal physical appearance who are *less* modest.
2. “The researchers’ prediction that modest male applicants would face hiring discrimination was *not* supported.” That’s kind of important to leave to the last sentence in the article, don’t you think? Shouldn’t that be the lead of this story?
3. What was the result? Were the women liked twice as much as the men? Slightly more? Did the results vary by whether the observer was male or female? Also pretty important.
She may be right, but this article gives us no data on which to make that judgment. It does have a lot of opinion, though.