Women who cry to manipulate others face more backlash than men

Abstract Two studies and one pilot study ( N total = 531) explore how observers react to men and women who cry in either good faith or in bad faith (i.e., with intention to manipulate). Using role congruity theory as a framework, we theorize that crying perceived as manipulative is less congruent with female stereotypes compared to male stereotypes. Accordingly, we find that women who cry in bad faith evoke less empathy and more anger from observers, who in turn judged them more harshly and are less willing to support them on a series of organizational outcomes. The same pattern did not emerge for men, for whom crying in good or bad faith did not seem to matter. This is in line with the idea that crying is overall less acceptable for men. In sum, we suggest that crying can have negative repercussions at work. This calls for greater attention to crafting interventions that can reduce discrimination and biases, ultimately fostering more positive workplace climates.