In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists—Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening

If you think gender discrimination is no longer an issue in your profession, you may be perpetuating it.

will be successful in his career?; 1 No, definitely not -7 Yes, definitely; α = .68) and perceptions of their general 'fit' to the profession (Overall, does it seem like Mark...is a good fit for this line of work? belongs in this profession? is someone who will really 'fit in' within the profession?; 1 No, definitely not -7 Yes, definitely; α = .92). Items for each measure were averaged to form composites. Higher scores indicate the employee was perceived as having more potential and being a better fit for the profession, respectively.
To more conservatively test whether managers' biased competence evaluations were rooted in their belief that women in the profession no longer face discrimination (effects described in main text) we also assessed their endorsement of more overtly hostile sexist attitudes toward women in their profession (2 items, adapted from the Hostile Sexism subscale: 54 Female vets tend to exaggerate the problems they face in this profession, Female vets tend to request too many accommodations or special favours at work; 1 Strongly disagree -7 Strongly agree; α = .72), and their general lack of support for focusing on issues of gender and equality within the profession (first prompted with: Over the past several years there has been more attention on issues of gender and equality in the veterinary profession. This includes differences in pay for male and female vets, and women's preparedness for leadership positions. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements on this topic; followed by four items: Overall, the increasing level of attention on issues of gender and equality within the veterinary profession is: unnecessary, excessive / 'too much,' valuable [reverse scored], important [reverse scored]; 1 Strongly disagree -7 Strongly agree; α = .90). Items for each measure were averaged to form composites. Higher scores indicated more negative/unsupportive attitudes toward women/gender equality. Notably, managers' belief that discrimination toward women in the profession is no longer an issue was associated with less support for focusing on issues of gender and equality (r = -.47, p < .001), and greater endorsement of hostile sexism (r = .39, p < .001). Given these associations, and to more critically assess whether managers' biased competence evaluations were indeed rooted in their belief that women in their profession no longer face discrimination, supplementary analyses tested whether these effects held true even when controlling for managers' hostile sexist attitudes and general lack of support for gender and equality issues (see SM: Study 2 Supplemental Analyses).
To assess managers' perception that an 'ideal vet,' the vet prototype, should possess a variety of stereotypically masculine traits, they were asked to indicate how important they believed it was for a vet to possess certain attributes that are typically associated with men: 55 For a vet to be really successful in this line of work, how important is it that they are...confident, level-headed, independent, decisive, skilled in business matters, stands up under pressure. Items were rated on a 7-point scale (1 Not at all important -7 Very important; α = .78). Items were averaged to form a composite. Higher scores indicated stronger endorsement of a stereotypically masculine vet prototype.  Figure S4 depicts results akin to those in Figure 2 using a modified analytical approach. Both examine managers' advised salaries for the target employee adjusting for differences in base salary rates (i.e., accounting for managers' reports of the typical salary in their practice for employees with comparable experience to the target), and both show the same significant condition*bias-belief interaction. Results shown in Figure 2 reflect analysis of deviation scores (a manager's advised salary for the target employee, minus their reported typical salary for employees in their practice with similar levels of experience as the target). Results depicted in Figure S4 reflect analysis of raw advised salaries, with managers' reported typical salary entered as a covariate. Mirroring the effects depicted in Figure 2 (main text), results of the latter analysis evinced bias in advised salaries, specifically among managers who believed gender bias was no longer an issue: condition*bias-belief, B = £987. 77 Figure S5 illustrates this as a function of estimated mean differences (θ XY | M).

Additional Depictions of Primary Analyses
Primary analyses used a standardized composite measure of competence to examine how managers' competence evaluations translated into a willingness to convey distinctive treatment toward the employee (e.g., willingness to let her/him take on more supervisory responsibilities, be more involved in managing the business/financial side of the practice [if s/he was in their practice]). To supplement this, an analogous set of analyses were conducted using the general (face valid) measure of competence alone. Results mirrored those described in the main text using the standardized composite. While managers' competence evaluations were critical to predicting how they would treat the employee overall (B = .43 [.28, .59], SE = .08, p < .001), these competence evaluations were themselves systematically biased among those who thought gender bias was no longer an issue

Controlling for Hostile Sexism and General Lack of Support for Gender and Equality
To more conservatively test whether biased competence evaluations are robustly rooted in managers' belief that women in the profession no longer face discrimination, we ran analyses that paralleled primary analyses but also controlled for managers' overtly hostile sexist attitudes toward women in their profession, and their general lack of support for giving attention to issues of gender and equality within the profession. Overall, results showed that even with these covariates, the belief that women no longer face discrimination in the profession remained a significant determinant of gender bias, evincing consistently biased competence evaluations favoring the male employee (all condition*bias-belief terms, B's ≥ .19, p's ≤ .02). Consistent with results of primary analyses, among those who endorsed this belief, the following effects were found: General competence, B = .49, p = .003; Colleaguebased competence, B = .51, p = .004; Advised salary, B = £2,588.20, p = .002; Advised raise, B = .56, p = .06; Standardized composite, B = .47, p < .001. Altogether, this indicated that the pernicious effects of managers' belief that gender bias is no longer an issue is a robust one, giving way to a consistent pattern of biased evaluations over and above any overtly hostile or unsupportive attitudes that they may have about women in their profession. In future research, it will be valuable to control for (gender-based) system justification beliefs as well.

Testing Alternative Moderators
In addition to managers' beliefs that women no longer face discrimination, two other potential moderators were examined: managers' gender and managers' perceptions of a masculine vet prototype.

Managers' Gender.
Consistent with previous work, 5 we found no evidence that fe/male managers differed in their tendency to show biased evaluations. When testing managers' gender as a moderator (analyses otherwise paralleled primary analyses) the following condition*manager-gender interaction terms emerged: General competence, B = .42, p = .08; Colleague-based competence, B = .31, p = .23; Advised salary, B = -£36.73, p = .98; Advised raise, B = .42, p = .34; Standardized composite, B = .28, p = .12. Thus, results demonstrated that managers' gender did not reliably determine who expressed biased competence evaluations. Rather, as described in primary analyses, managers' beliefs that women no longer face discrimination explained these biased competence evaluations.
For descriptive purposes we also examined the gender composition of managers who endorsed this belief (scoring above the midpoint on the scale). Overall, while there were more men than women who endorsed this belief (and more women than men who rejected it; see main text for detail), a sizable proportion of women did hold this belief. This suggests the non-significant effect of managers' gender (as a moderator) was not simply due to lack of variability among women, or men, in their beliefs that women in the profession no longer face discrimination.

Managers' Perceptions of the Vet Prototype. It has been suggested that pro-male biases can emerge when
there is a perception that the 'ideal employee' for a position, the prototype, has a preponderance of stereotypicallymasculine traits. 56 This is in part because with a more masculine prototype individuals see male employees as a better fit for that position, and female employees as having a relative lack of fit. As a result of these differing perceptions, gender-biased evaluations of male and female employees can emerge. Therefore, we examined whether gender-biased competence evaluations were more pronounced as a function of managers' tendency to maintain a more stereotypically-masculine vet prototype. When testing managers' vet prototype as a moderator (degree to which it was defined by stereotypically masculine traits), the following condition*prototype interaction Note that while analyses focused on managers' endorsement of stereotypically masculine traits to the vet prototype, consistent with past work, we also measured items reflecting stereotypically feminine traits (considerate, caring, kind, able to multi-task, good communication skills; α = .72). The same pattern of non-significant moderation emerged when analyzing managers' endorsement of stereotypically feminine traits to the vet prototype, and when analyzing the proportional endorsement of stereotypically masculine traits (i.e., endorsement of stereotypically masculine traits minus endorsement of stereotypically feminine traits).

Competence Evaluations Predicting Additional Forms of Treatment and Related Reactions
Willingness to Support the Employee. Primary analyses demonstrated that managers' biased competence evaluations (favoring the male employee) translated into biased treatment of the employeespecifically, a tendency to provide more distinctive treatment, which is grounded in and effectively conveys the distinct level of competence, value and worth seen in the employee. These analyses tested whether a similar bias emerged in managers' willingness to provide supportive treatment. Such treatment does not entail provision of any prestigious or high-status opportunities (e.g., taking on new managerial responsibilities) but rather entails provision of more general assistance or support (e.g., additional resources, accommodation) so to help the employee 'keep up' with their colleagues.
Analyses paralleled those described in the main text, and results demonstrated a similar effect: biased competence evaluations (favoring the male employee) translated into a greater willingness to provide support and assistance to the employee, but only among managers who believed women no longer experience discrimination.
Specifically, while evaluations of employee competence were critical overall to predicting managers' willingness to provide support (B = .39, p < .001) these competence evaluations were themselves systematically biased among those who believed women no longer face bias (favoring the male employee; condition*bias-belief, B = .22, p < .001), which translated into bias in their willingness to support the employee. In other words, there was a significant Importantly, while these results demonstrated a similar effect to those described in the main text, the magnitude of the effect was noticeably smallerhalf the size, in fact. This indicates that while (biased) competence evaluations are relevant to understanding managers' (biased) tendency to offer general support to the employee, their competence perceptions play a less critical role here than they do in explaining their tendency to treat the employee in distinctly positive ways (e.g., offering unique managerial opportunities). More generally this suggests that distinctive-and supportive forms of treatment are both conceptually separable and different in their most central antecedents. 53 suggests that when individuals express subtle biasesfor instance, in evaluating a female (vs. male) job applicant who has a mix of qualities and drawbacksthey may proceed to strategically de/emphasize certain information about the applicant so to justify their biased evaluation (e.g., suggesting the female applicant's 'strong points' are not actually that strong or important to consider). To test this idea we examined whether expressions of biased competence evaluations (among those who believed women no longer face bias) predicted a subsequent differential evaluation/weighting of the employee's performance information (in a way that would seemingly substantiate their biased competence .09, p = .60) this belief. Regarding career potential however, analyses showed a trending effect (condition*biasbelief, B = .14, p = .10) such that those who rejected this belief showed no difference in their perceptions of the fe/male employee's career potential (B = -.05, p = .44) but managers who endorsed it viewed the male employee as having more potential than the otherwise identical female employee (B = .38, p = .04).

Differential Weighting of Performance Information. Some evidence
Additionally, to test whether perceptions of an employee's competence (and any bias therein) might explain how managers perceived the employee in terms of fit for the profession and overall career potential, follow-up analyses tested whether there was an indirect effect of employee gender on perceived fit / potential, via perceived competence. Analyses paralleled those described in main text (PROCESS Model 7, using the standardized composite measure of competence). Results showed that evaluations of employee competence were indeed critical overall to predicting how managers perceived the employee in terms of their fit (B = .74, p < .001) and career potential (B = .77, p < .001). Moreover, given that these competence evaluations were consistently biased (favoring the male employee) among those who believed women no longer face discrimination, this ultimately translated into  There were two versions, differing only in the purported name of the vet ("Mark," "Elizabeth") and the corresponding pronouns used (male, female). The male version is presented here. Managers randomly assigned to the female version of the performance review saw the same text but with female pronouns used throughout.