Gender stereotypes drive perceptual differences of vocal confidence.

One's ability to express confidence is critical to achieve one's goals in a social context-such as commanding respect from others, establishing higher social status, and persuading others. How individuals perceive confidence may be shaped by the socio-indexical cues produced by the speaker. In the current production/perception study, we asked four speakers (two cisgender women/men) to answer trivia questions under three speaking contexts: natural, overconfident, and underconfident (i.e., lack of confidence). An evaluation of the speakers' acoustics indicated that the speakers significantly varied their acoustic cues as a function of speaking context and that the women and men had significantly different acoustic cues. The speakers' answers to the trivia questions in the three contexts (natural, overconfident, underconfident) were then presented to listeners (N = 26) in a social judgment task using a computer mouse-tracking paradigm. Listeners were sensitive to the speakers' acoustic modulations of confidence and differentially interpreted these cues based on the perceived gender of the speaker, thereby impacting listeners' cognition and social decision making. We consider, then, how listeners' social judgments about confidence were impacted by gender stereotypes about women and men from social, heuristic-based processes.

Bold or reckless? The impact of workplace risk-taking on attributions and expected outcomes.

Risk-takers are rhetorically extolled in America, but does this veneration ignore the downsides of failure? We test competing perspectives on how workplace risk-takers are perceived by examining cultural attitudes about individuals who successfully take, unsuccessful take, and avoid risks at work. The results of two experiments show that, in comparison to risk-avoidance, expected workplace outcomes are enhanced by successful risk-taking and that failure does not appear to significantly harm expected workplace outcomes for risk-takers. While one experiment finds that failed risk-takers are seen as more likely to be downsized (because they are viewed as more foolish), we also find failed risk-takers are perceived as more likely to be hired and promoted. Mediation analyses reveal this is primarily because risk-taking-regardless of outcome-considerably increases perceptions of agency and decreases perceptions of indecisiveness, and these attributions predict positive workplace outcomes. We also find the results to be remarkably similar across varying participant characteristics (namely, gender, race, education level, work experience, income, and age), which suggests that there is a broad cultural consensus in the U.S. about the value of risk-taking. In sum, we find evidence that observers generally make more positive attributions about risk-takers than about risk-avoiders, even when risk-takers fail.