GENDER DIFFERENCES IN NETWORK PREFERENCES MONICA M. STALLINGS The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania

When seeking career-related advice, how do men and womens network preferences differ when it comes to relationship type and gender-based homophily? STUDY 1: Network Preferences Relationship type and Gender-based homophily

INFORMAL NETWORKS Informal networks linked to advantages for career progression and overall career success (Brass, 1985; Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990; Smith-Lovin & McPherson, 1993)

Network relationships characterized by type of resources exchanged: 1. instrumental purely job-related 2. expressive friendship / social support 3. multiplex job-related and friendship RELATIONSHIP TYPE

Instrumental: The exchange of job-related resources, including career direction guidance, exposure to upper management, obtaining challenging and visible assignments, and advocacy for promotion (Ibarra, 1993; Kram, 1988; Thomas, 1990) Multiplex: Numerous connections between two people may increase strength and richness of a relationship and may also provide increased benefits (Ibarra, 1992) RELATIONSHIP TYPE

GENDER-BASED HOMOPHILY Propensity of individuals to interact with similar others (e.g. sex, race, age) similarity-attraction theory (Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958) automatic in-group bias (Sherif & Sherif, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) high-status group, low status group (Kanter, 1977) gender commonality promotes trust (Ibarra, 1992)

HYPOTHESES H1: Men and women prefer multiplex ties more than instrumental ties. H2: Men and women prefer same-sex others more than opposite-sex others H3: Men and women most likely to seek advice from same-sex multiplex ties. H4: When same sex multiplex ties are not available, the gender of advice-seeker moderates interaction between homophily and relationship type in predicting likelihood in advice-seeking H4a: Men more likely to seek advice from same-sex instrumental tie than opposite-sex multiplex tie. H4b: Women more likely to seek advice from opposite-sex multiplex tie than same-sex instrumental tie

METHOD Multiplex Male advice-seeker Male advice-giver Male advice-seeker Male advice-giver Male advice-seeker Female advice-giver Male advice-seeker Female advice-giver Female advice-seeker Male advice-giver Female advice-seeker Male advice-giver Female advice-seeker Female advice-giver Female advice-seeker Female advice-giver Instrumental Multiplex 2x2x2 design

PROCEDURE 20-minute web-based survey vignette places participant in situation involving career- related decision in context of a professional services firm participant considering approaching one of a handful of equally senior status individuals, both men and women, for career advice. participant given description of relationship shared with only ONE of those senior status individuals description gives name of potential advice-giver cueing gender and characterization of the relationship priming relationship type (see next slide) DV: likelihood of advice-seeking derived from the average of 3 items

VIGNETTE CUES Instrumental Cue: –[ NAME] is known as a star at the firm. You know [NAME] because you were a member on one of [NAME]s deal teams. Your conversations take place on a professional level regarding mostly work related issues. You consider [NAME] to be a colleague rather than a friend. Your relationship is based only on professional interactions since you have never interacted with [NAME] on a personal level. Multiplex cue: –[NAME] is known as a star at the firm. You know [NAME] because you were a member on one of his/her deal teams. You also know [NAME] because you both trained for the NYC marathon and you occasionally ran together. Your conversations take place on both a professional level (where strictly work-related issues are discussed) and a personal level (where mostly non-work related issues are discussed). You consider [NAME] to be a colleague and a friend. Your relationship is based on both professional interactions and personal interactions.

ANALYSES ANOVA -Gender of Advice Seeker -Gender of Advice Giver -Relationship Type Planned contrasts to test preferences

Warmth-Competence Model Warmth high low high Competence low Admiration High status, not competitive Pride, admiration (e.g., in-group, close allies Paternalistic prejudice Low status, not competitive Pity, sympathy (e.g., elderly people, disabled people) Contemptuous prejudice Low status, competitive Contempt, disgust, anger resentment (e.g., welfare recipients, poor people) Envious prejudice High status, competitive Envy, jealousy (e.g., rich people, feminists, Asians, Jews) Source: Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002, Table 1, p. 881 Instrumental, Female advice-giver Multiplex, Male advice-giver Multiplex, Female advice-giver Instrumental, Male advice-giver

Test of Between Subject Effects for Three-Factorial Design Source Type III df Mean F Sig. Sum of Squares Square Corrected Model (a) Intercept Relationship type * Gender Advice-Giver Gender Advice-Seeker * Relationshiptype* Gender Advice-Giver Relationshiptype* Gender Advice-Seeker Gender Advice-Giver * Gender Advice-Seeker * Relationship type * Gender Advice-Giver * Gender Advice-Seeker Error Total Corrected Total a R Squared =.310 (Adjusted R Squared =.273) * p<.05 H1 H2 H3

STUDY 1 RESULTS: Relationship type Take-Away (H1) Both women and men prefer multiplex ties more than instrumental ties

STUDY 1 RESULTS: Gender-based homophily Take-Aways (H2) Men do not significantly prefer same-sex ties more than opposite- sex ties. Women prefer same-sex more than opposite-sex ties, marginally significant.

STUDY 1 RESULTS: Gender and Relationship type Take-Away (H3) Both men and women prefer same-sex multiplex ties more than any other type of tie WOMEN ADVICE-SEEKERS MEN ADVICE-SEEKERS

STUDY 1 RESULTS: Gender and Relationship type When same-sex multiplex ties are NOT available, the next most preferred tie for (H4): MEN (H4a) – Male advice-seekers prefer either instrumental males or multiplex females. No significant difference between the two groups. WOMEN (H4b) – Female advice-seekers significantly prefer multiplex male advice-givers more than instrumental female advice-givers Take-Away: Both women and men seem to place instrumental women low on the preference hierarchy. WOMEN ADVICE-SEEKERSMEN ADVICE-SEEKERS Contrast 2: Significant difference Contrast 2: NOT a significant differenceContrast 1: NOT a significant difference Gender Differences in Informal Networks by Monica Stallings

STUDY 1 RESULTS: Gender and Relationship type More Take-Aways Contrast 3 – Men significantly prefer male multiplex advice-givers over female multiplex advice givers. Implication: Men value same-sex ties – relationship type not as important. Contrast 4 – Women prefer both female multiplex advice-givers and male multiplex advice-givers. No significant difference between the two groups. Implication: Women value multiplex ties– gender not as important. WOMEN ADVICE-SEEKERS Contrast 4: NOT a significant difference MEN ADVICE-SEEKERS Contrast 3: Significant difference