Running head: LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 1

Likeability and Leadership:

A Comprehensive Examination of Gendered Emotion Performance in the Workplace

Allie Miller
Bryant University
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 2

Abstract

Women in modern society are encouraged to pursue their professional aspirations.

Despite this, many people have complicated feelings about women in the workplace, which can

ultimately hinder the ability of women to ascend to powerful roles. Qualifications, experience,

and actions aside, women are often subject to intense scrutiny in the workplace. Gendered

emotions and expectations are placed on both men and women, and the expectations of well-

liked leaders align more naturally with stereotypes that fit men. As a result, it seems that women

in the pursuit of power must make a choice: they can deviate from gender norms and risk being

liked, or struggle to command respect as they remain loyal to emotional gender norms. The aim

of this study is to understand the likeability of leaders who deviate from the emotion

performance associated with gender in the workplace and whether or not it is possible for a

woman who performs the emotions more readily associated with her gender to truly be seen as a

leader.
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 3

Likeability and Leadership:

A Comprehensive Examination of Gendered Emotion Performance in the Workplace

Women in the workplace have long been subject to scrutiny and discrimination. The

mainstream prominence of powerful female figures like Sheryl Sandberg and Hillary Clinton

draws attention to the sometimes tumultuous journey women face in their paths to success. As a

result, scholars have become increasingly interested in the role of gender norms in the

workplace. Despite often equal qualifications and experience, women and men are typically

viewed differently in professional settings. Even when women and men act very similarly in the

workplace, they are viewed differently.

Both men and women are subject to stereotypes about their emotions and behavior,

which carry into the workplace. In their quest to achieve power and prestige in the workplace,

women often are held back by outdated notions about a woman’s place in an organization, which

are underscored by gender norms that remain relevant in the modern era. As a result, women find

themselves stuck – they can ensure peer acceptance if they remain loyal to the confines of the

expectations of their gender, or they can risk the approval of their peers in the pursuit of power.

Should woman pursue professional success, she risks her ability to conform to gender norms of

emotion and therefore is exposed to rejection from her peers. It seems that coexisting power and

likeability are reserved for men.

Literature Review

Gender Norms and the Consequences of Deviation

Men and women are often perceived differently in the workplace, and research suggests

that such perceptions are often based on general, inherent assumptions about gender. Madeline

Heilman’s research for the Journal of Social Issues found that generally, men are characterized
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 4

as forceful, independent, and decisive. Alternatively, women are seen as kind, helpful,

sympathetic, and concerned about others. These associations are not merely different, they can

be seen as oppositional, “with members of one sex seen as lacking what is thought to be most

prevalent in members of the other sex” (Heilman, 2001, p. 658). According to “Sex Effects in

Evaluating Leaders” when workplace leaders deviate from the behaviors expected of their

gender, they experience disapproval and negative evaluations. Even when men and women

exhibit identical leader behavior, they are evaluated differently, suggesting that their actions as

leaders are evaluated based on their gender (Bartol & Butterfield, 1976).

In the spirit of being seen as more forceful and decisive, anger is an emotion that is

stereotypically associated with men according to research by Victoria Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann

(2008). When women deviate and express this male-typed emotion, it deeply upsets perceptions

about them. Both male and female observers view angry female professionals more negatively

than angry male professionals (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008). This evaluation exists no matter the

females’ rank in the company, “such that both a female trainee and a female CEO were given

lower status if they expressed anger than if they did not” (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008, p. 268).

While observers tend to attribute men’s emotional reactions to external factors, women’s

emotional reactions are more often attributed to internal factors, leading to questions of their

emotional stability. The gender bias regarding the implications of anger are eliminated only

when an external attribution is provided (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008).

Despite the accepted norms about emotions fitting genders, such stereotypes do not

actually account for the emotions that the sexes experience in the workplace. Research

emphasizes that men and women do not differ in their experiences of emotions in the workplace.

Instead, emotions are more often linked to status in the organization and factors like autonomy
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 5

and peer interactions (Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008). Gender does account for the expression of

emotions in the workplace. As Brescoll and Uhlmann’s (2008) research would suggest, men are

more likely to express their anger than women, as their anger is more readily accepted by

evaluators. Women in the workplace aim to control their anger more carefully. Women feel most

comfortable outwardly expressing their happiness in the workplace, which fits assumptions about

their gender (Sloan, 2012).

In addition to emotions, certain behaviors in the workplace are often associated with one

gender. Self-promotion is commonly accepted when exhibited by men, but it results in negative

evaluations when committed by women (Rudman, 1998). Particularly, women often perceive

self-promoting women as “less competent, less socially attractive, and subsequently less hirable

than the self-promoting man” (Rudman, 1998, p. 640). Negative perceptions about outspoken

women tend to exist no matter the content of conversation. Both men and women negatively

view women who speak more than others. Women seem to sense this potential for backlash, and

as a result they are less likely to be highly voluble in the workplace (Brescoll, 2011). Even in the

hiring process, following gender-specific speech style norms is extremely important for women.

Evaluations of speech style are most important to female observers, who tend to pay careful

attention for variations in speech style, as noted in research by Mary Glenn Wiley and Arlene

Eskilson (1985). Evaluations of the speech style of applicants, though, disappear when a group

of only male applicants are considered and evaluated (Wiley & Eskilson, 1985).

The discomfort associated with deviation from gender norms is heightened when such

deviations result in success (Heilman et al., 2004). Particularly, women who succeed in careers

that are associated with men often receive negative attention. “Penalties for Success: Reactions

to Women Who Succeed at Male-Typed Jobs” notes such women are less liked by work peers
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 6

and are more vulnerable to personal attacks and insults than men in the same positions. These

negative perceptions can threaten the careers of successful women in male-typed jobs, impacting

their formal evaluations and recommendations (Heilman et al., 2004). Success is a factor that

deeply influences perceptions of women in the workplace, particularly when that success

happens in leadership positions. Negative perceptions of female success seem to be heightened

when women are put in higher ranking roles; “when depicted as managers, and particularly as

successful managers, women were found to be characterized more negatively in interpersonal

attributes” (Heilman et al., 1995, p. 237). Studies suggest that this seemingly inherent dislike for

female authority figures may simply stem from the fact that people are accustomed to male

authority figures, and as a result, exposure to a powerful female makes them uncomfortable

(Rudman & Kilianski, 2000). This breach of expectations unfortunately often leads to negative

perceptions, even if such feelings are not founded in reality.

Women are well aware of the negative social and potentially career-altering

consequences that can happen as a result of success. The anticipation that achievements will

entice negative repercussions instills a fear in women that sometimes discourages their

performance and ambition (Horner, 1972). Clearly, committing behaviors that deviate from

gender norms can be detrimental to success and likeability in the workplace, but it seems that

acting in a way that fits gender stereotypes might not be good for women either. Both men and

women who are seen as communal (a traditionally feminine characteristic) receive lower hiring

rates (Rudman & Glick, 1999). Agentic candidates (a traditionally masculine characteristic) who

are perceived as more competitive and assertive are considered better management candidates,

but women who exhibit such behavior are seen as less socially skilled than men (Rudman &

Glick, 1999).
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 7

The Difference Between Male and Female Leadership

While controlled studies account for the information about perceptions regarding male

and female supervisors who behave similarly, it seems that such models might not be far off.

Successful male and female managers report utilizing a mix of masculine and feminine

approaches in running their firms (Cliff et al., 2005). Though they mix their styles to suit the

need of their organizations, they tend to talk and act as though they run their organizations in

gender-stereotypic ways, even if they do not actually practice such management (Cliff et al.,

2005). Differences between the genders appear most notably in communication styles, but in

theory these differences would favor female managers. A study of managers engaged in

disciplinary discussions found that female managers take more time in discussions and are less

likely to interrupt the person they are talking to, factors which are positively correlated with

perceived fairness (Cole, 2004). These results suggest that “leadership and communication styles

commonly found in females may lead them to be better equipped than male managers to manage

employee discipline situations” (Cole, 2004, p. 254).

Female Gender Norms Added by Motherhood

One ingredient has the power to further disrupt and severely underscore biases about

women in the workplace: motherhood. When working women become mothers, their perceived

competence is almost always automatically traded for perceived warmth (Cuddy et al., 2004).

While new fathers also gain perceived warmth, it simply adds to their perceived competence, no

trade-off is made (Cuddy et al., 2004). As competence evaluations serve as an indicator of

interest in hiring, promoting, and educating workers, their gained sense of warmth does not help

working mothers, but instead their loss in perceived competence can hinder them (Cuddy et al.,

2004, p. 711). Discrimination against mothers begins even before the child is born. Pregnant
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 8

women are extremely susceptible to negative evaluations in the workplace, particularly when

evaluated by men (Halpert et al., 1993). Male supervisors and coworkers tend to view pregnant

women as “overly emotional, often irrational, physically limited, and less than committed to their

jobs. They are not seen as valued or dependable employees” (Halpert et al., 1993, p. 655).

Negative and warped evaluations of mothers are based not on actual substantive work, but

instead basic, stereotypical assumptions about motherhood.

Women and Power

Men and women also differ in their perceptions of the world around them, which could be

related to the qualities that society associates with their gender. As detailed by Heilman’s (2004)

research, women are considered sympathetic and caring. This association seems to influence how

female leaders perceive their own power and goals. In a study of female politicians, Grant (1998)

found that while “politicians resembled their male colleagues in their willingness to fight for

their convictions, women saw power as an instrument for public purpose rather than as a tool for

personal ambition” (p. 60-61). Though female politicians may have a more communal intent in

seeking power, many evaluators do not think that power-seeking looks good on women. Voting

preferences for female politicians are negatively influenced by her actual or perceived power-

seeking intentions (Okimoto & Brescoll, 2009). Such perceptions of intent for power-seeking

have no impact on male candidates. Ironically, voters place the reasoning for their negative

evaluations of power-seeking women on the “perceived lack of communality implied by

women’s power-seeking intentions” (Okimoto & Brescoll, 2009, p. 923).

Complicated feelings about women and power are not all that surprising, considering that

women are not often on the receiving end of power. Male-typed emotions such as confidence and

anger are positively associated with interpersonal and organizational power, female-typed
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 9

emotions such as worry, fear, and vulnerability are negatively associated with both interpersonal

and organizational power. Researchers argue that the emotions most commonly associated with

men can be leveraged into power, while the emotions more readily associated with women can

actually translate into powerlessness in the workplace (Ragins & Winkel, 2011). As a result,

women typically have a more difficult time exerting influence in the workplace. While men have

more legitimate and expert power, the power women are most likely to have is referent power, or

power associated with influence, loyalty, and friendship (Carli, 1999, p. 94). The power that

women are most likely to gain is relative to norms of their gender, often resulting in power that is

based on their interpersonal abilities, not actual expertise.

Evident by research which shows that female candidates can be as successful as male

candidates when they participate in state legislative, statewide, and congressional elections,

voters might not necessarily be entirely biased against female candidates (Burrell, 1994). Some

voters even have preferences to vote for women over men. It seems that this predisposition is

based on stereotypes about the genders. Voters tend to believe, based on stereotypes, that

candidates might possess certain traits, beliefs, or competencies based on their gender. As an

example, consider that “voters perceive male candidates as better at handling crime and foreign

affairs, and female candidates as better at helping the poor and protecting women's rights”

(Sanbonmatsu, 2002, p. 20). Assumptions about a candidate’s gender even transcend

assumptions about party affiliation. For both Democrats and Republicans, “politicians are

believed to differ by gender in perceived issue competency and issue positions” (Sanbonmatsu,

2009, p. 490). For women especially, their gender has major influence on perceptions, which

extend beyond organizational constraints, as exemplified by public perception of female

politicians.
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 10

Rationale for Hypothesis

The literature clearly indicates that power and likeability can only be married by men.

Loyalty to gender norms is vital to likeability for both genders. Unfortunately for women, that

means that they should not act assertively or independently if they want to be accepted by their

peers. Ultimately, women must make a sacrifice: they can accept that they will not achieve

power in the workplace if they want to be likeable, or they can abandon gender norms for the

sake of gaining power – which might compromise their ability to rise. This study aims to

understand the relationship between the independent variables - gender and emotion, and the

dependent variable - likeability.

Hypotheses

An examination of the existing research raises the following hypothesis about gender,

power, and likeability in the workplace:

H1: Leaders who defy gender norms by exhibiting emotions that are not readily

associated with their gender are perceived as less likeable than leaders who support

and exhibit the emotions associated with their gender.

Methods

Participants

Participants recruited for this study will be students at a medium-sized northeastern

university. The goal to recruit at least one hundred students, with the hope of obtaining both male

and female respondents. Students with work experience will be recruited through university

courses and organizations. Considering the average age of students at the university, the mean

age of participants will likely be 20 years old. Subjects will be emailed a link to a survey, with

instructions guiding their participation. It is possible that some instructors would be willing to
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 11

offer their students extra credit for participation in the study, in which case the professor would

email the survey link to students with specialized instructions for students to receive course

credit.

Procedure

The introduction to the survey will inform the subjects that the study concerns the

evaluation of an organization’s leader in terms of likeability. The introduction will explain that

the participant will be reading about and reacting to the behavior of a leader in an organization.

Upon reading the instructions and confirming their consent, subjects will be randomly redirected

to one of four potential scenarios of leaders interacting with a group of subordinates in the

workplace. Each vignette will expose subjects to manipulations of two different levels of

independent variables, sex of the subject of the story (male or female) and their emotion (anger

or no emotion), to understand the dependent variable, likeability. The four vignettes will be

randomly assigned to participants, with each story being equally distributed among participants.

With one hundred overall respondents, each vignette would have twenty-five reviewers.

Following review of vignette, participants will be asked to give their opinions of the subject of

the story in a brief questionnaire. The vignettes, shared in Appendix A, begin with an

introduction of the subject. The beginning will reveal their gender (indicated by their name,

either Jane or John) and their position in the company. In all scenarios, the subject will be

described as an Assistant Vice President of Sales for an office supply retailer. The vignette will

describe the subject’s interaction with a group of subordinates. Two of the scenarios (one

featuring Jane and the other featuring John) will describe a subdued and inoffensive conversation

with updates and a review of the past quarter. The other two scenarios (one featuring Jane and

the other featuring John) will relay a heated interaction, with the story’s subjects very apparently
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 12

displaying signs of anger. The calm scenario and the angry scenario will each feature the exact

same interaction of Jane and John, with just the names and pronouns being adjusted accordingly.

Per review of the vignette, participants will be redirected to a survey about the story. The

survey, included in Appendix B, will ask questions about the leaders’ management style and

likeability. The respondents will be asked to indicate their agreement with a list of statements

using a 7-point Likert scale. The survey provided is the Reysen likeability scale (2005), first

introduced in the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. Manipulation tests will also be

included to ensure that the participant grasped the independent variables – the gender of the

subject and their mood. If a participant’s survey results indicate that they did not note these

variables, they will not be included in the study. In addition to survey included in Appendix B,

some additional demographic questions will be included. Information about the gender and age

of the participant may later serve purpose in further analyzing the results of the study.

Completion of the survey will mark the end of the participants’ involvement in the study. All

participants will have the contact information of the experimenter. If they are inclined, they can

reach out to learn more about the purpose of the study and manipulations used. Additionally, any

interested participants will be given access to the results following the completion of the study.

Instruments

For each of the four situations investigated in the study, a short, one paragraph story

describes a particular situation, with a 2 (subject’s gender: male vs. female) x 2 (subject’s

emotion: anger vs. no emotion) subject design. Stories marked by the two emotions have two

versions, one in which the Assistant Vice President of Sales is male and one in which the

Assistant Vice President of Sales is female. In every other aspect, the versions for both emotions

are identical. The sex of the subordinates in each story is ambiguous to avoid further
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 13

manipulation of the story. The stories will be presented to study participants randomly, with an

emphasis to ensure that each situation is reviewed equally. Participants will only be subject to

one scenario.

Statistic Test

This study will use an ANOVA to analyze the relationship between the independent

variables, gender and emotion, and the dependent variable, likeability. This is a reliable measure

of the relationship between the variables, because it is a two by two subject design with nominal

independent variables. This type of test will also allow analysis of the strength of the relationship

between the variables.

Conclusion

The existing research underscores a clear conundrum for women in the pursuit of power.

Frankly, power and the characteristics that warrant power are limited to men. Women cannot

realistically balance likeability and authority, as loyalty to gender norms (which do not promote

assertiveness of any kind) are vital to likeability. The aforementioned research provides a helpful

and interesting basis to understand gender norms and how they impact power and the workplace.

The present study will contribute to the body of literature on the topic of gender, power, and

likeability. The results would likely corroborate existing theories on the dynamic of gender and

power.
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 14

References

Bartol, K. M., & Butterfield, D. A. (1976). Sex effects in evaluating leaders. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 61, 446–454. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.61.4.446

Brescoll, V. L. (2011). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 622-641.

doi: 10.1177/0001839212439994

Brescoll, V. L. & Uhlmann, E. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Psychological

Science, 19(3), 268-274. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079

Burrell, B. C. (1994). A Woman's Place is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the

Feminist Era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues,

55(1), 81–99. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00106

Cliff, J. E., Langton, N. & Aldrich, H. E. (2005). Walking the talk? Gendered rhetoric vs. action

in small firms. Organization Studies, 26(1), 61–91. doi: 10.1177/0170840605046490

Cole, N. D. (2004). Gender differences in perceived disciplinary fairness. Gender, Work and

Organization, 11(3), 254-279. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00231

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth

doesn't cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701-718. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-

4537.2004.00381

Grant, J. (1988) Women as managers: What they can offer to organizations. Organizational

Dynamics, 56–63. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(88)90036-8

Halpert, J. A., Wilson, M. L., & Hickman, J. L. (1993). Pregnancy as a source of bias in

performance appraisals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(7), 649—663.

LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 15

doi: 10.1002/job.4030140704

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's

ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674.

doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00234

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence

perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237–252.

doi: 10.1177/1548051808321692

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:

Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89(3), 416-427. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416

Horner, M. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women.

Journal of Social Issues, 28, 157–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972.tb00023

Okimoto, T. G. & Brescoll, V. L. (2009). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash

against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 923-936.

doi: 10.1177/0146167210371949

Ragins, B. R. & Winkel, D. E. (2011). Gender, emotion, and power in work relationships.

Human Resource Management Review, 21, 377-393. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0495-8

Reysen, S. (2005). Construction of a new scale: The Reysen Likability Scale. Social Behavior

and Personality, 33(2), 201-208.

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of

counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74(3), 629-645. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.629

LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 16

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic

women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle-managers. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004-1010. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004

Rudman, L. A. & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1315-1328.

doi: 10.1177/0146167200263001

Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political

Science, 46(1), 20-34. doi: 10.2307/3088412

Sanbonmatsu, K., & Dolan, K. (2009). Do gender stereotypes transcend party? Political

Research Quarterly, 62(3), 485-494. doi: 10.1177/1065912908322416

Sloan, M. M. (2012). Controlling anger and happiness at work: An examination of gender

differences. Gender Work and Organization, 19(4), 370-391.

doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00518

Wiley, M. G., & Eskilson, A. (1985). Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success:

What if women talk more like men? Sex Roles, 12(9), 993–1007.

doi: 10.1007/BF00288100
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 17

Appendix A

Gender Norms and Power Test Vignettes

Woman x Angry

Jane, the Assistant Vice President of Sales for an office supply retailer, held a meeting with a

group of twelve of her subordinates. The group had to meet to review sales of the last quarter.

After sharing general company updates, Jane began the discussion of sales from the last quarter.

She told the group, “look, I expected better from you. These numbers are just way too low.

Where was your focus? You are supposed to be veterans at this company.” She sighed and got up

from her seat. Before she left the room she told the team, “I expect to see better results next

quarter, or there will be consequences.”

Man x Angry

John, the Assistant Vice President of Sales for an office supply retailer, held a meeting with a

group of twelve of his subordinates. The group had to meet to review sales of the last quarter.

After sharing general company updates, John began the discussion of sales from the last quarter.

He told the group, “look, I expected better from you. These numbers are just way too low. Where

was your focus? You are supposed to be veterans at this company.” He sighed and got up from

his seat. Before he left the room he told the team, “I expect to see better results next quarter, or

there will be consequences.”

Woman x No Emotion

Jane, the Assistant Vice President of Sales for an office supply retailer, held a meeting with a

group of twelve of her subordinates. The group had to meet to review sales of the last quarter.
LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 18

After sharing general company updates, Jane began the discussion of sales from the last quarter.

She told the group, “sales this quarter were a little low, but I am not too concerned. The winter is

always a tough season for our sales and I anticipate that we will see a natural increase in the

coming months.” She went on to discuss figures and explain some new tactics for the team.

Before she left the room she said, “thanks for your hard work this quarter, I look forward to

meeting again soon.”

Man x No Emotion

John, the Assistant Vice President of Sales for an office supply retailer, held a meeting with a

group of twelve of his subordinates. The group had to meet to review sales of the last quarter.

After sharing general company updates, John began the discussion of sales from the last quarter.

He told the group, “sales this quarter were a little low, but I am not too concerned. The winter is

always a tough season for our sales and I anticipate that we will see a natural increase in the

coming months.” He went on to discuss figures and explain some new tactics for the team.

Before he left the room he said, “thanks for your hard work this quarter, I look forward to

meeting again soon.”

LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 19

Appendix B

Reysen Likability Scale

Instructions: Circle how strongly you agree with each statement.

1. This person is friendly.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

2. This person is likeable.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

3. This person is warm.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

4. This person is approachable.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

5. I would ask this person for advice.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

LIKEABILITY AND LEADERSHIP 20

6. I would like this person as a coworker.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

7. I would like this person as a roommate.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

8. I would like to be friends with this person.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

9. This person is physically attractive.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

10. This person is similar to me.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

11. This person is knowledgeable.

Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Very Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree