98 Chapter 3Court noted that the situation presented to
Hopkins by Price Waterhouse was a no-win
situation: The job required the trait of “ag-
gressiveness” in order to succeed, yet the
partners objected to women possessing this
trait. The Court responded:Indeed, we are tempted to say that Dr.
Fiske’s expert testimony was merely ic-
ing on Hopkins’s cake. It takes no special
training to discern sex stereotyping in a
description of an aggressive female em-
ployee as requiring “a course in charm
school.” Nor...does it require expertise in
psychology to know that, if an employee’s
flawed “interpersonal skills” can be cor-
rected by a soft-hued suit or a new shade
of lipstick, perhaps it is the employee’s
sex and not her interpersonal skills that
has drawn the criticism. (Price Waterhouse
v. Ho p k i n s, 1989, p. 1793, cited in Fiske
et al., 1991)It is sometimes difficult to evaluate the
equal treatment of men and women when
they do not have the same positions in so-
ciety. See Sidebar 3.2 for a controversial case
of sex discrimination. When people think
of sex discrimination, they typically think of
women as being treated unfairly compared
to men, especially in regard to employment
situations. This topic is reviewed in more
depth in Chapter 12. Can you think of any
ways we treat men unfairly? When the mili-
tary draft was still in effect and only men
were chosen, was that sex discrimination?
When two working parents divorce and cus-
tody is automatically awarded to the mother,
is that sex discrimination? Remember that
sex discrimination refers to the differential
treatment of either men or women due to
their sex.styled, and wear jewelry’” (Hopkins v. Price
Waterhouse,1985, p. 1117, cited in Fiske
et al., 1991).
Susan Fiske, a social psychologist and
an expert on stereotyping, presented the
conditions that foster stereotyping to the Su-
preme Court. One condition is when an in-
dividual is unique in his or her membership
in a given category. A single man in a class of
30 women or a single Asian person in a class
of 20 Caucasians is more likely to become a
victim of stereotyping. Only 1% of the part-
ners (7 of 662) at Price Waterhouse were
female at the time (Fiske & Stevens, 1993).
Another condition that fosters stereotyping
is when the group to which an individual be-
longs is incongruent with the person’s role,
in this case, the person’s occupation. For
example, male nurses are more likely to be
viewed in terms of gender-role stereotypes
than female nurses. In the 1980s, Ann Hop-
kins was in a nontraditional occupation for
women, as there were few women who were
managers of a Big 8 accounting firm. This is
a case in which stereotype-inconsistent be-
havior that could not be ignored was viewed
as more extreme; thus, assertive behavior on
the part of Hopkins was likely to have been
viewed as aggressive. Although some of her
clients viewed her aggressive behavior in
positive terms—behavior that implied she
could get the job done—the partners viewed
her aggressive behavior in negative terms—
as that of someone who was difficult to get
along with. Citing the literature on gen-
der-role stereotyping, Fiske and colleagues
(1991) maintained that Hopkins’s behavior
may have been viewed differently because
she was female. Recall the research on the
shifting standard.
The Supreme Court took the scientific
literature on gender-role stereotyping seri-
ously and found in favor of Hopkins. TheM03_HELG0185_04_SE_C03.indd 98 6/21/11 12:22 PM