give feedback on this paper on its writing/spelling grammar/study design/formatting/readability/ etc

give feedback on this paper on its writing/spelling grammar/study design/formatting/readability/ etc

Studies 1a and 1b: An Inclusive Culture Lowers Dominance and Masculine Defaults

In studies 1a and 1b, we examined whether in a competitive-meritocratic culture, women (and men) feel a greater need to conform to the male default of showing dominance to lead, compared to an equity-inclusive culture where this need likely is relaxed. We further tested the underlying mechanism whether pressures to use dominant leadership behaviors are weakened in an equity-inclusive (vs. competitive-meritocratic) culture because of less perceived masculine defaults in the organization. Finally, we examined whether a equity-inclusive (vs. competitive-meritocratic) culture would have additional benefits for women in STEM domains by releasing their otherwise constrained career aspirations without negatively affecting men's aspirations. The two later analyses were exploratory in Study 1a and preregistered in Study 1b.

Given the similarities between Studies 1a and 1b, we report the methods and results of the two studies together, in each section first for Study 1a and then for Study 1b. Two key differences exist between the studies. First, due to the difficulties inherent in recruiting female STEM employees, only Study 1a examined STEM employees whereas Study 1b, which included a larger sample, examined employees from male-dominanted employment sectors more broadly. Second, the materials that manipulated the equity-inclusive versus competitive-meritocratic culture slightly varied between the studies. In Study 1a, we manipulated the culture with the presence of different gender-inclusive policies and a testimonial from one current leader, whereas Study 1b the same gender-inclusive policies were present in either condition and we manipulated the culture with results from an alleged company-wide survey. This change served to rule out the issue in Study 1a where men were less attentive to the policy manipulation (as described below).

Methods

Participants

ForStudy 1a, thea prioripower analysis indicated the need for at least 351 participants to have 80% power to detect small to medium effect sizes (f = 0.15) for the two main effects and interaction in ANOVAs when employing the traditional .05 alpha-criterion of statistical significance (G*Power3.1; Faul et al., 2007). We thus preregistered a sample size of 400 to account for participants who would fail our manipulation check or attention checks (seehttps://osf.io/b8cuy/?view_only=acf9e62937bb437d84b2ba65ae05f302). Participants were recruited through Prolific. Of the 401 participants initially recruited, we excluded (as preregistered) participants who self-reported responding randomly (n = 15), who failed our free-response manipulation check of culture (n = 10), or who did not self-identify as either women or men (n = 3). No participant failed to correctly indicate the name of the company.

The final sample of Study 1a included 376 adult STEM employees (192 women, 184 men). Participants' age ranged from 20 to 70 years (M = 36.55 years,SD = 11.25). They most frequently reported employment in the computer sciences (36%), biological sciences (20%), engineering (16%), mathematical/statistical sciences (6%), physical sciences (6%), or a combination of these fields (9%). The majority of 81% were White, 10% Asian, 3% African American, and 3% Hispanic. All participants were compensated US$1.50 for the online survey.

For the subsequentStudy 1b, thea prioripower analysis for multiple regression models indicated the need for at least 485 participants to have 80% power to detect small to medium effect sizes (f = 0.15) when employing the traditional .05 alpha-criterion of statistical significance (G*Power3.1; Faul et al., 2007). To have greater power to test possible interactions, we preregistered to double the sample size and collect 800 (see https://osf.io/6fxd5/?view_only=b9959d0ad982475fadcd7a7311f0534f). Participants were recruited through Prolific. Of the 800 participants initially recruited, we excluded (as preregistered) participants who self-reported that they responded randomly during the study (n = 25), who failed our manipulation check by not appropriately responding to our key free-response question asking to reiterate the culture (n = 21), who left a comment indicating their participation is invalid (e.g., technical issue made the scenario change half-way through from non-inclusive to then inclusive;n = 3), and who did not self-identify as either women or men (n = 7).

The final sample of Study 1b included 744 adult employees (373 women, 371 men) from male-dominated employment domains (i.e., 36% computer science, 20% biological sciences, 17% engineering, 9% combination of these fields, 6% physical sciences, 6% mathematical/statistical sciences, 5% other). Their age ranged from 18 to 87 years (M = 40.84 years,SD = 12.05). The majority of 84% were White, 8% Asian, 3% African American, and the remaining 5% were either Hispanic, Indigenous, Middle Eastern, and preferred not to say. All participants were compensated US$1.25 for the online survey.

Design and Procedure

In both Studies 1a and 1b, the experiment was a 2 (Inclusiveness of Culture: Competitive-meritocratic vs. Equity-inclusive) 2 (Participant Gender: woman, man) between-subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions.

The procedure was similar and participants in both studies were informed that the research concerned people's behavior in workplaces. After giving informed consent, participants learned that they are "at work and your boss has designated you as the leader of the new group project. As part of your responsibility for this project, you will be managing a team of 10 people." They then received information about the fictitious tech company CCB including an executive summary of a review of CCB's workforce demographics, policies, and practices that an independent company called Catalyst had conducted.

The manipulation of the culture slightly varied between the two studies. InStudy 1a, the Catalyst checklist always detailed four policies that the report had identified as being in place at CCB and three policies that CCB lacked. In the equity-inclusive condition, all four present policies and none of the absent policies were gender inclusive (e.g., "Supervisors accountable for providing equal support to all genders"). In the competitive-meritocratic condition, only one of the four present policies, but all three of the absent policies were gender inclusive.

Further manipulating the culture, Study 1a presented a written testimonial from a current leader at CCB to ensure participants did not see the policies as mere "lip service" that might tell little about the actual organizational culture. Specifically, a leader of the IT department was cited saying that "a key strength of our company is that we value the contributions of" either "those individuals that most help us succeed" (competitive-meritocratic) or "everyone equally regardless of their gender or background" (equity-inclusive). The leader further said that "interactions between employees from different" either "office locations are characterized by this success-orientation" (competitive-meritocratic) or "backgrounds are characterized by respect and trust" (equity-inclusive).

InStudy 1b, all participants received the same checklist that communicated a mix of gender-inclusive and non-gender-related policies. Specifically, of the three policies in place, one was gender-inclusive and two were gender-neutral (e.g., has regular company retreats). Of the three policies lacking, one was gender-inclusive (i.e., "programs and workshops to create cultural norms for positive working relations among all genders") and one neutral (i.e., "reimbursement for relevant classes or degree programs").

Participants in Study 1b then learned about a company-wide culture survey. This survey ensured that participants perceived the manipulation as communicating the actual cultural norms at the organization as held by most employees. The survey revealed that, for example, "a key strength of CCB is that the contributions of" either "everyone are valued equally regardless of their gender or background" (equity-inclusive condition) or "those individuals are valued particularly that most help us succeed" (competitive-meritocratic condition).

Participants in both studies then spent one minute imagining what it would be like to work at CCB. The subsequent free-response question asked participants to summarize their impression of the work culture at CCB. As preregistered, those who failed to adequately describe the culture (e.g., by not reiterating at least one characteristic of the culture, by entering one-word or gibberish answers, by leaving the field blank) were excluded from the analyses.

The questionnaires that followed were largely identical in Study 1a and 1b, although the order in which the scales were administered varied slightly and can be seen in the Supplemental Material (Appendix C for Study 1a, Appendix D for Study 1b). Participants completed measures of their leadership approaches, perceived masculine defaults, constrained career aspirations, and perceived inclusiveness of the culture. Participants lastly responded to manipulation checks and provided demographic information.

Measures

Dominance and Prestige Leadership Approaches.In both Studies 1a and 1b, participants first completed the 8-item short version of the Dominance-Prestige scale(Cheng et al., 2010; Witkower et al., 2020), modified to refer to the work environment. They indicated how much they would use dominance in leading others on 4 items (e.g., "I would be willing to use aggressive tactics to get my way", "I would try to control others rather than permit them to control me"), on 7-point rating scales (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = very much). The resulting dominance scale had high internal consistency in Study 1a, = .80, and Study 1b, = .84.

Although this research focused on dominance, participants responded to the 4 items of the scale that assess prestige in leading others (e.g., "I would try to make the team members respect and admire me"). The prestige scale had acceptable internal consistency in Study 1a, = .72, and Study 1b, = .70. The items served to mask the purpose of the study and enabled us to run exploratory analyses reported in the Supplemental Material (consistently finding no effect of condition).

Perceived Masculine Defaults.In both studies, participants responded to the prompt "to be successful and fit in at CCB, how much do you think the following qualities are needed?", assessing the extent to which they believed masculine-typed qualities would be needed in the organization. Based on the theoretical account of masculine defaults in workplaces including multiple facetts(Cheryan & Markus, 2020), we developed six items (e.g., "nominate yourself for promotion", and "be willing to argue for your own point of view"). Participants responded on 7-point rating scales (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = very much). Exploratory factor analyses with oblimin rotation yielded a one-factor solution (with loadings from .56 to .83 in Study 1a), and the resulting scale had high internal consistency in Study 1a, = .86, and Study 1b, = .85.

Constrained Career Aspirations.In both studies, a measure with two ladders assessed the extent to which participants perceived the organizational culture to constrain their career aspirations(adapted from the MacArthur Subjective Social Status scale; Adler et al., 2000). On the first ladder, participants indicated to which of ten rungs they would aspire to advance in five years, that is, the degree to which they aspired to become a leader at CCB, assuming they were hired at rung 2. On the second ladder, participants indicated to which of the ten rungs they would realistically be able to advance given the culture of the organization, that is, their realistic leadership outlook at CCB. To obtain a measure of career constraint, we subtracted each participant's value on the second outlook ladder from the first aspiration ladder. On the resulting measure, values of 0 indicate that the aspiration matches the outlook and no constraints exist, higher values (above 0) indicate more constrained aspirations, and smaller values (below 0) indicate unconstrained opportunities with lower aspirations than outlook.

Manipulation Checks for Culture Manipulation.In Study 1a, where participants received varying gender-inclusive policies and leader testimonials, the item "How do you think the others in your team would view the policies or programs that promote a gender-inclusive culture in the organization?", assessed participants' beliefs about how inclusive the organisation would actually be(Hall et al., 2022). Participants responded on a 7-point rating scale (-3=negatively, 0=neutrally, +3=positively). Two additional checks, presented at the end of the study, confirmed that participants recalled the policies with greater than chance accuracy (see Appendix C2 in the Supplemental Material for details and results).

In Study 1b, where all participants received the same policy checklist and culture was manipulated through an alleged company-wide culture survey, participants indicated "How inclusive does the environment and culture at CCB feel to you?" on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 3 = somewhat, 7 = very much).

Results

Manipulation Check

InStudy 1a, the 2 (Inclusiveness of Culture) 2 (Participant Gender) ANOVA on how others would view the policies showed the expected main effect of Condition,F(1, 374) = 345.28,p < .001,_p² = .48, indicating that participants thought others in the organisation would see gender-inclusive policies more favorably in the equity-inclusion (M = 6.00,SD= 0.96) than the competitive-meritocracy (M = 3.54,SD= 1.54) condition. Exploratory analyses found no main effect of Gender,F(1, 372) = 0.03,p = .868,_p² < .001, and no interaction,F(1, 372) = 1.09,p = .297,_p² = .003, suggesting that women and men did not differ in their perceptions of how others see the culture in the two conditions.

Also inStudy 1b, the ANOVA on how inclusive the culture feels showed the expected main effect of Condition,F(1, 742) = 207.06,p < .001,_p² = .22, indicating that participants perceived the culture to be more inclusive in the equity-inclusion (M = 5.74,SD= 1.09) than the competitive-meritocracy (M = 4.37,SD= 1.47) condition. Again, the ANOVA found no main effect of Gender,F(1, 740) = 0.23,p = .633,_p² < .001, and no interaction,F(1, 740) = 0.15,p = .703,_p² < .001, suggesting that women and men did not differ in their perception of the culture when it was manipulated using company-wide survey results.

Anticipated Dominant Leadership Approach

As preregistered, we ran analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) on the dependent measures and followed up significant interactions using simple effects analyses. To isolate effects for dominance as distinct from general leadership motivation, the ANCOVAs on dominance included the covariate prestige (as preregistered) although results hold when not including the covariates. Partial eta squared values (_p²) are reported as effect sizes. For both studies, Table 1 shows the intercorrelations between the key measures and Table 2 the means and standard deviations.

Table 1

Study 1a and 1b: Correlations

Variables	1	2	3	4	5
Study 1a
1. Condition	-	-.21**	-.07	-.04	-.42***
2. Dominance	-.22***	-	.37***	-.01	.32***
3. Prestige	-.17*	.54***	-	.05	.23***
4. Constrained aspirations	-.18*	-.12	.08	-	.01
5. Perceived masculine defaults	-.63***	.25***	.32***	.22**	-
Study 1b
1. Condition	-	-.03	-.06	-.09	-.29***
2. Dominance	-.21**	-	.52***	.09	.35***
3. Prestige	-.10	.44***	-	-.07	.36***
4. Constrained aspirations	-.06	.02	-.01	-	.11*
5. Perceived masculine defaults	-.44***	.42***	.38***	.13*	-

Note. Correlations are presented separated by participant gender, with women's results below the diagonal and men's results above the diagonal. Condition was coded competitive-meritocratic = 0, equity-inclusive = 1. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Table 2

Study 1a and 1b: Means (and Standard Deviations)

	Overall		Women		Men
Inclusiveness Culture / Outcome Variables	Low	High	d		Low	High	d		Low	High	d
Study 1a
Dominance	2.99 (1.18)	2.52 (1.03)	0.42		2.87 (1.18)	2.39 (0.99)	0.46		3.11 (1.16)	2.65 (1.05)	0.42
Prestige	5.16 (0.93)	4.90 (1.13)	0.26		5.27 (0.94)	4.89 (1.17)	0.35		5.05 (0.92)	4.91 (1.09)	0.14
Constrained aspirations	0.66 (1.23)	0.38 (1.04)	0.25		0.88 (1.39)	0.44 (0.85)	0.36		0.41 (0.97)	0.31 (1.19)	0.09
Masculine defaults	5.32 (0.92)	4.06 (1.06)	1.27		5.60 (0.88)	3.97 (1.13)	1.60		5.01 (086)	4.14 (0.98)	0.92
Study 1b
Dominance	2.71 (1.18)	2.44 (1.10)	0.24		2.60 (1.19)	2.14 (0.94)	0.43		2.82 (1.16)	2.76 (1.16)	0.05
Prestige	4.89 (1.09)	4.72 (1.05)	0.16		4.92 (1.15)	4.70 (1.05)	0.20		4.87 (1.04)	4.74 (1.05)	0.12
Constrained aspirations	0.54 (1.15)	0.37 (1.13)	0.15		0.53 (1.25)	0.39 (1.10)	0.12		0.55 (1.06)	0.36 (1.17)	0.18
Masculine defaults	4.63 (1.17)	3.73 (1.08)	0.80		4.79 (1.23)	3.65 (1.10)	0.99		4.48 (1.10)	3.82 (1.06)	0.61

Note. For "constrained career aspirations", a value of 0 would indicate no constraint and higher values (above 0) indicate more constrained aspirations. In Study 1a, the sample included 99 women in the low inclusive and 93 women in the high inclusive condition, and 88 men in the low and 96 in the high inclusive condition. In Study 1b, the sample included 181 women in the low inclusive and 192 women in the high inclusive condition, and 191 men in the low and 180 in the high inclusive condition.

In Studies 1a and 1b, our primary preregistered hypothesis focused on women and stated that women would feel a greater need to conform to the male default of showing dominance to lead in a competitive-meritocratic culture than in an equity-inclusive culture where this need is relaxed. In Study 1a, we preregistered that culture would have less impact on men's dominance (although the pilot study, reported in Appendix A in the Supplemental Material, suggested men might also reduce their dominance). Based on the findings of Study 1a, for Study 1b we preregistered a main effect of Condition, predicting that both women and men would anticipate using less dominance in the equity-inclusive (vs. competitive-meritocratic) condition.

InStudy 1a, results of a 2 x 2 ANCOVA (controlling for prestige,F(1, 371) = 88.80,p < .001,_p² = .19) revealed a significant main effect of Condition,F(1, 371) = 11.64,p < .001,_p² = .03, indicating that, regardless of gender, participants anticipated using more dominance in the competitive-meritocratic than equity-inclusive culture. In addition, a significant main effect of Gender,F(1, 371) = 8.31,p = .004,_p² = .02, indicated that men anticipated using more dominance than women. The interaction with gender was nonsignificant,F(1, 371) = 0.22,p = .643,_p² < .01.

InStudy 1b, as expected and replicating the results of the prior study, the 2 x 2 ANCOVA (controlling for prestige,F(1, 739) = 217.07,p < .001,_p² = .23) revealed a significant main effect of Condition,F(1, 739) = 5.91,p = .015,_p² = .01, indicated that both women and men anticipated using more dominance in the competitive-meritocratic than equity-inclusive culture. In addition, a significant main effect of Gender,F(1, 739) = 33.69,p < .001,_p² = .04, indicated that men anticipated using more dominance than women did. Finally, a significant interaction,F(1, 739) = 5.91,p = .015,_p² = .01, suggested that mainly women would use less dominance in the equity-inclusive than the competitive-meritocratic culture,t(739) = 3.44,p< .001, whereas men would not,t(739) = 0.01,p= .996.

Perceived Masculine Defaults

Testing Effects of Culture on Women's and Men's Perceived Masculine Defaults. Women (and men) should anticipate using more dominance in a competitive-meritocratic culture if they believe masculine defaults are stronger in that setting. InStudy 1a, we thus explored the effect of culture on perceived masculine defaults. Results revealed significant main effects of both Condition,F(1, 372) = 153.73,p < .001,_p² = .29, and Gender,F(1, 372) = 3.99,p = .047,_p² = .03, that were qualified by a significant interaction,F(1, 372) = 14.79,p < .001,_p² = .04. Decomposing this interaction, results found that although both women and men perceived stronger masculine defaults in the competitive-meritocratic than equity-inclusive condition, this difference was more pronounced among the women,t(372) = 11.61,p< .001, than the men,t(372) = 5.99,p< .001.

Additional simple effects revealed that in the competitive-meritocratic condition men perceived weaker masculine defaults than women did,t(371) = 4.12,p< .001, whereas in the equity-inclusive condition women and men did not differ in their perceived masculine defaults,t(371) = -1.31,p= .190. This result might be explained by men's lesser attention to the absence of gender-inclusive policies in the competitive-meritocratic condition. In fact, an additional manipulation check that asked participants to recall which gender-inclusive policies were present or absent (see Appendix B2 in the Supplemental Materials) showed that women reported there were fewer gender-inclusive policies than men did in the competitive-meritocratic condition, whereas no such difference occurred in the equity-inclusive condition.

InStudy 1b, we tested the preregistered hypothesis that an equity-inclusive culture will be perceived to have weaker masculine defaults than a competitive-meritocratic culture, and particular women will perceive a competitive-meritocratic culture to have strong masculine defaults. Results showed significant main effects for both Condition,F(1, 740) = 120.33,p < .001,_p² = .14, and Gender,F(1, 740) = 0.79,p = .374,_p² = .001. Supporting our prediction, these main effects were qualified by a significant interaction, F(1, 470) = 8.77,p = .003,_p² = .01, indicating that although both women and men perceived stronger defaults in the competitive-meritocratic than equity-inclusive condition, this difference was more pronounced among the women,t(740) = 9.86,p< .001, than the men,t(740) = 5.65,p< .001.

Of note, an additional contrast revealed that women perceived stronger masculine defaults than men in the competitive-meritocratic culture,t(740) = 2.72,p= .007, but not in the equity-inclusive inclusive culture,t(740) = -1.47,p= .143, a finding that is again consistent with the result of the additional manipulation check reported in the prior section.

Testing Whether Reduced Masculine Defaults Relate to Less Dominance. The analysis of the mediation models was exploratory for Study 1a but preregistered for Study 1b. Consistent with the focus of this project, this analysis was motivated by our main interest in women participants and the subsequent sections thus present results for women and men separately as well as the moderated mediation model(Hayes, 2015) with all participants to test whether gender moderated the indirect effect of condition on dominance. Figure 1 displays these moderated mediation models.

The proposed mediation models were analyzed with ordinary least squares path analysis(R macro PROCESS; Hayes, 2022). The indirect effects were tested using 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals based on 10,000 samples. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.

InStudy 1a, the exploratory mediation analysis showed a significant indirect effect,a₁b₁ = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.40, -0.10], suggesting that participants perceived higher masculine defaults in the competitive-meritocratic than equity-inclusive condition,a₁ = -1.26,p < .001, and higher perceived masculine defaults related to more use of dominance,b₁ = 0.20, p < .001. When running this model for female and male participants separately, results found a significant indirect effect for both women (n = 190),a₁b₁ = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.49, -0.003], and men (n = 184),a₁b₁ = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.11]. In the model with all participants, gender did not significantly moderate the indirect effect, index of moderated meditation = -0.02, 95% CI[-0.28, +0.23].

In Study 1b, the preregistered mediation analysis again showed a significant indirect effect,a₁b₁ = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.42, -0.24], suggesting that participants perceived higher masculine defaults in the competitive-meritocratic than equity-inclusive condition,a₁ = -1.64,p < .001, and higher perceived masculine defaults related to more use of dominance,b₁ = 0.36, p < .001. When running this model for female and male participants separately, as in Study 1a, results found a significant indirect effect for both women (n = 373),a₁b₁ = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.28], and men (n = 371),a₁b₁ = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.15]. In the model with all participants, and in contrast to Study 1a, gender significantly moderated the strength of the indirect effect, index of moderated meditation = .17, 95% CI[+0.01, +0.35], suggesting that although the indirect effect was significant for both women and men, the effect was stronger among the women, conditional indirect effecta₁b₁ = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.56, -0.30], than the men, conditional indirect effecta₁b₁ = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.35, -0.14].

Figure 1

Mediation Model for the Effect of Culture (Competitive-Meritocracy vs. Equity-Inclusion) on Dominance Through Perceived Masculine Defaults (Study 1a on the left, Study 1b on the right)

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown. *p < .05, **p< .01, ***p < .001

Constrained Career Aspirations

Testing Effects of Culture on Women's and Men's Constraints.Study 1a explored whether a competitive-meritocratic (vs. equity-inclusive) culture constrains women's career aspirations, that is, widens the gap between their desired career advancement and the career advancement they think will be possible, but does not constrain men's aspirations. Exploratory analyses yielded a significant main effect of Condition,F(1, 372) = 5.29,p = .022,_p² = .01, indicating less career constraints in the equity-inclusive compared to competitive-meritocratic condition. Further, a significant main effect Gender,F(1, 372) = 6.62,p = .010,_p² = .02, indicated higher constraints for women than men. Against our expectation, the interaction was nonsignificant and only a weak trend emerged,F(1, 372) = 2.16,p = .143,_p² = .01, suggesting that culture had no different effect on the women than the men. Yet, this study lacked power to test interaction hypotheses.

InStudy 1b, we preregistered the interaction hypothesis predicting that an equity-inclusive compared to a competitive-meritocratic culture released women's otherwise constrained career advancement without adding additional constraints for men. Replicating the results of Study 1a, a significant main effect Condition,F(1, 740) = 4.07,p = .044,_p² = .01, indicated fewer perceived career constraints in the equity-inclusive than competitive-meritocratic condition. The main effect Gender was nonsignificant,F(1, 740) = 0.004,p = .950,_p² < .001. Against our prediction, yet replicating the results of Study 1a, the interaction was again nonsignificant,F(1, 740) = 0.13,p = .723,_p² < .001. Given our focus on women, we nevertheless ran simple effects analysis finding that, as expected, women perceived fewer constraints in the equity-inclusive than competitive-meritocratic condition,t(372) = 2.69,p = .007, whereas men's perception was not affected by the conditions,t(372) = 0.58,p = .561.

Testing Whether Reduced Masculine Defaults Relate to Less Constraints. Mediation analyses tested whether for women, in particular, the weaker masculine defaults in an equity-inclusive (vs. competitive-meritocratic) culture would relate to less constrained career aspirations. Moderated mediation models tested this question for both Studies 1a and 1b, revealing consistent results. Figure 2 displays the models for both studies.

Exploratory analyses inStudy 1a showed that for women, the weaker masculine defaults in the equity-inclusive (vs. competitive-meritocratic) culture related to their released career aspirations, conditional indirect effecta₁b₁ = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.56, -0.02], whereas this indirect effect was not significant for men,a₁b₁ = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.13, +0.15]. The omnibus moderated mediation analysis revealed a significant index of moderated mediation, index = .30, 95% CI[+0.03, +0.58], indicated that the role of masculine defaults for the effect of condition on constrained aspirations varied significantly between women and men. With the mediator masculine defaults in the model, the direct effect became non-significant,c'= -.13,p = .348.

Study 1b provided another test of this idea with preregisterd hypotheses and analyses, finding a similar pattern. For women, the weaker masculine defaults in the equity-inclusive (vs. competitive-meritocratic) culture related to their released career aspirations, conditional indirect effecta₁b₁ = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, -0.001], whereas this indirect effect was not significant for men,a₁b₁ = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.16, +0.01]. However, in contrast to Study 1a, the index of moderated mediationa failed to reach significance in Study 1b, index = .05, 95% CI[-0.09, +0.20], indicating that the strength of the indirect effect did not vary significantly between women and men. As in Study 1a, with the mediator masculine defaults in the model, the direct effect became non-significant,c'= -0.07,p = .409.

Figure 2

Moderated Mediation Model for the Effect of Culture on Constrained Career Aspirations Through Perceived Masculine Defaults, as a Function of Participant Gender (Study 1a on the left, Study 1b on the right).

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown. *p < .05, **p< .01, ***p < .001

Discussion of Studies 1a and 1b

• In Pilot Study, we preregistered that Dominance in high (vs. low) inclusive could either be (a) more or (b) less. Make sure to add discussion that results suggest it is (b).