Cristina García-Ael

Gender differences in adolescents’ choice of heroes and admired adults in five countries

Seven hundred and sixty-eight adolescents from five countries and regions (USA, Spain, Hong Kong, Qatar, and Malaysia), aged 13–19 (M = 15.78; SD = 1.28) years, responded to a questionnaire designed to determine who was their most admired famous adult or hero. Male heroes clearly outnumbered admired females (73.3% vs. 26.7%). There was a pattern of same-sex choices, but it was more likely for girls to choose male heroes than for boys to choose females. Over half of the admired adults were athletes, and movie, television, and music stars. Regarding the personally known adults, there was a more balanced choice of males and females, with parents as the most frequent choice. Results suggest that society continues to fail in providing an adequate supply of female role models.

The effects of emotions on the associations between stereotypical characteristics of successful and unsuccessful leaders and evaluations of their performance

This study investigated how emotions (admiration; envy; contempt) mediated the relationship between the stereotypes (competence; warmth) ascribed to successful and unsuccessful male and female leaders working in male- and female-dominated sectors (technology and health respectively) and evaluations of performance. Multiple-Group Structural Equation Modelling was used to analyse data from 956 workers. We found that in other sex-dominated environments leaders’ perceived competence (directly) and warmth (indirectly through admiration) were associated with more positive evaluations of performance than in same sex-dominated environments regardless of their company’s success. Moreover, successful, competent female leaders exhibiting little warmth in a female-dominated environment elicited envy, and hence negative evaluations. The results are discussed in terms of the Stereotype Content Model and its extension, the Behaviours from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS) Map, as well as role congruity theory. Keywords: stereotypes; emotions; gender; leadership; failure.

Contextual Aspects of Gender Stereotypes in Leadership: The Role of Success or Failure in Management

This study advance research on the think manager–think male paradigm by analysing the influence of performance information (success vs. failure), on task- and relationship-oriented leadership styles, and on three evaluative and behavioural measures. ased on the theoretical framework of think manager–think male, the present study examines the extent to which information about successful or failed company performance affects: (a) leadership styles (task and relationship), (b) overall assessment of male and female leaders, (c) assignment of responsibility for the results, and (d) disposition to replace male and female leaders. In a quasi-experimental study (N = 106 workers) with a 2 (success vs. failure) x 2 (male vs. female leader) design the aforementioned variables were analyzed. Results show that company performance has an impact on all outcome variables. However, this pattern affects male leaders in a different way than female leaders. Overall, male leaders are assessed more or less positively, depending on the outcome of performance results. For female leaders, company performance has no significant impact on perceptual (task- and relationship-oriented leadership style) and behavioral (replacement) measures, but it does on evaluative measures (performance assessment and attribution of responsibility), although to a lesser extent than for male leaders. In sum, performance assessment is influenced not only by company performance but also by the gender of the manager. Overall, men receive better evaluations than women in the success condition, but their evaluation is worse in cases of failure. These results fit with gender stereotypes; more power is attributed to men, who are considered more responsible for company results. This does not happen in the case of women managers who are perceived as less responsible for successes and failures.

The Effects of Occupational Status and Sex-Typed Jobs on the Evaluation of Men and Women

Background: Occupational segregation by gender is one of the major problems faced by professional women in the labor market. Since the sixties, psychological explanations point out that gender stereotypes are responsible for this persistent inequality in the workforce. Nevertheless, most of research has overlooked that emotions are particularly important as the discrimination faced by professional women is better explained by the ambivalent feelings they provoke than by stereotyping. Aim: The aim of this research is to analyse from the Stereotype Content Model (SCM, Fiske et al., 2002) and the Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS) Map (Cuddy et al., 2007) whether cognitive, affective and behavioral components of prejudice act jointly to explain gender segregation in the labor market. Method: 1098 Spanish workers (59% women) from different occupational sectors were requested to rate how professional men and women in high (leaders) and low status (secretaries) positions who work in male (high-tech company) and female-dominated (health company) occupations are perceived (stereotypes), as well as the affective responses and the behavioral tendencies that they arouse. Data analyses: Two analyses of variance (a) and two ANOVAs with repeated measures (b) were carried out to analyze the effect of occupational status (high vs. low), type of company (high-tech vs. health) and workers’ sex (men vs. women) on: (a) the social structural variables (status and competition), (b) on the stereotyped dimensions (competence and warmth) and (c) on emotions (admiration, envy and contempt). Finally, mediational analyses were carried out to examine the link between stereotypes, emotions, and behavioral tendencies. Results: The most striking results show that (a) competition and status differentiate leaders and secretaries, (b) men leaders are rated as more competent and less warm than secretaries, whereas women leaders are viewed as more competent than women secretaries but with equivalent warmth, and (c) admiration and envy predict behavioral tendencies, but restricted to professional men regardless of organizational context. Conclusion: Results reveal that cognitive, affective and behavioral components of prejudice act jointly to explain discrimination against women in the workplace. Findings are discussed according to the SCM and the BIAS Map.

Think-manager - Think-male vs. Teoría del Rol Social: ¿cómo percibimos a hombres y mujeres en el mundo laboral?

Resumen El presente estudio se centra en analizar dos puntos en los que discrepan la Teoría del Rol Social (Eagly, 1987) y el paradigma del Think-manager—Think-male (Schein, 1973): si existe o no una atribución diferencial de rasgos y conductas a hombres y mujeres en el mismo rol laboral y con un estatus similar, y si estas atribuciones varían en función del sexo del perceptor. Para ello se analizarán qué rasgos y conductas—orientación a la tarea y a las personas—se atribuyen a un hombre directivo, a una mujer directiva y a un directivo en general, utilizando como target de comparación el estereotipo de hombres y mujeres con empleo. Los resultados muestran una percepción más andrógina del rol laboral y del rol directivo por parte de las mujeres y un leve aumento en la feminidad percibida del estereotipo del buen líder por parte de los hombres.