Herein lies evidence of everything that’s wrong with gender roles (women as passive and unassertive) and norms (women as calm and agreeable) and one effect of subverting or transgressing those roles and norms, and the sorry reality that women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
The study used a pretty interesting methodology (a deception paradigm) as well.
Write-up from feministing:
I think most of us probably don’t need academic research to know there’s a double standard when it comes to how men’s and women’s expressions of anger are received. But a new study confirms it: anger tends to bolster men’s authority while undermining women’s.
Pacific Standard reports: Angry men are strong and forceful, while angry women are often dismissed as overly emotional. That double standard has been alleged for years now, with plenty of anecdotal evidence to back it up. A newly published study featuring a mock jury not only supports that assertion: It takes it a step further, suggesting women’s anger may actually be counterproductive. It finds that, while men who express anger are more likely to influence their peers, the opposite is true for women. “Our results lend scientific support to a frequent claim voiced by women, sometimes dismissed as paranoia,” conclude psychologists Jessica Salerno of Arizona State University and Liana Peter-Hagene of the University of Illinois–Chicago. They suggest the belief “that people would have listened to her impassioned argument, had she been a man” is, in many cases, valid. The study engaged undergrads in a mock trial, in which participants initially gave their own verdict and then heard scripted messages they believed were from fellow “jurors” about whether they were voting to convict or not — four of whom agreed with the participant’s own verdict and one who disagreed. The holdout who disagreed made their case in a tone that was either angry, fearful, or emotionally neutral and had either a male or female name.
© and source/ rest:.
Study abstract, Salerno and Peter-Hagene (2015) (emphasis added):
We investigated whether expressing anger increases social influence for men, but diminishes social influence for women, during group deliberation. In a deception paradigm, participants believed they were engaged in a computer-mediated mock jury deliberation about a murder case. In actuality, the interaction was scripted. The script included 5 other mock jurors who provided verdicts and comments in support of the verdicts; 4 agreed with the participant and 1 was a “holdout” dissenter. Holdouts expressed their opinions with no emotion, anger, or fear and had either male or female names. Holdouts exerted no influence on participants’ opinions when they expressed no emotion or fear. Participants’ confidence in their own verdict dropped significantly, however, after male holdouts expressed anger. Yet, anger expression undermined female holdouts: Participants became significantly more confident in their original verdicts after female holdouts expressed anger-even though they were expressing the exact same opinion and emotion as the male holdouts. Mediation analyses revealed that participants drew different inferences from male versus female anger, which created a gender gap in influence during group deliberation. The current study has implications for group decisions in general, and jury deliberations in particular, by suggesting that expressing anger might lead men to gain influence, but women to lose influence over others (even when making identical arguments). These diverging consequences might result in women potentially having less influence on societally important decisions than men, such as jury verdicts.
(Excerpt etc. first posted on. Orig. attribution above.)