نقش خوداثربخشی رهبری و فعالسازی کلیشه ای در مورد واکنش پذیری قلبی عروقی، رفتاری و خود گزارشدهی در حوزه رهبری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|26294||2010||15 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 21, Issue 1, February 2010, Pages 89–103
This research examines female leaders' responses to the gender–leader stereotype and the role of leadership self-efficacy in these responses. Using the biopsychosocial model of threat and challenge, this laboratory experiment examined women's cardiovascular, behavioral (i.e., performance), and self-report responses to the negative female leader stereotype as a function of leadership efficacy. Female participants, selected on leadership efficacy scores, served as leaders of ostensible three-person groups within an immersive virtual environment. Half were explicitly primed with the negative stereotype. As predicted, women with high, as opposed to low, percepts of leadership self-efficacy exhibited cardiovascular patterns of threat when performing the leadership task, and they performed better in the explicit stereotype activation condition compared to those not explicitly primed. Additionally, this threat was consistent with positive reactance responses on behavioral and self-report measures. Low efficacy leaders were not threatened, but they did show stereotype priming effects by assimilating to the negative stereotype on the self-report and behavioral measures. This research provides greater insight into stereotype reactance effects and highlights the role of self-efficacy in moderating stereotype threat and stereotype priming effects.
Perceptions of personal efficacy provide countless personal and social benefits (Bandura, 1997). In particular, leadership self-efficacy- or belief in one's leadership capabilities- positively predicts leadership, group, and organizational outcomes (Chemers et al., 2000, Hoyt et al., 2003 and Murphy, 2002). For those with high, as opposed to low, levels of leadership self-efficacy, performing a leadership task is highly self-relevant. This heightened self-relevance may, however, make those with high efficacy more prone to being threatened by negative stereotype-based expectations (Marx & Stapel, 2006a). For example, female leaders with high levels of leadership self-efficacy may be more likely than women with lower levels of self-efficacy to be threatened that they might confirm the negative gender–leader stereotype. Responses to such stereotype threat range from negative vulnerability responses, such as decreased performance, to more positive reactance responses including performance increases (Hoyt and Chemers, 2008, Kray et al., 2004 and Steele and Aronson, 1995). In previous research, we demonstrated that female leaders with high levels of leadership efficacy show positive reactance responses (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2007). Although those with higher levels of efficacy showed better behavioral and self-report outcomes under stereotype activation (stereotype reactance) than those with lower efficacy, we contend that they have greater threat-based concerns. In this research, we test this assertion by examining the role of leadership self-efficacy and stereotype activation on women's self-report and behavioral responses as well as cardiovascular patterns indicative of threat in a leadership situation. 1.1. Leadership and conflicting stereotypic expectations A well-documented incongruity exists between female gender stereotypes and the leadership role (Eagly and Carli, 2003, Eagly and Carli, 2007 and Eagly and Karau, 2002). Pervasive and highly resilient, gender stereotypes generally revolve around communal and agentic attributes, ones that directly relate to the leadership domain (Dodge et al., 1995, Eagly, 1987 and Heilman, 2001). Stereotypical attributes of men include “agentic” characteristics emphasizing confidence, control, and assertiveness whereas stereotypical attributes of women include “communal” characteristics, highlighting a concern for others (Broverman et al., 1972, Eagly et al., 2000 and Heilman, 2001). Eagly and Karau's role congruity theory maintains that agentic, as opposed to communal, tendencies are often deemed requisite for leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Substantial empirical evidence supports the association between successful leadership and stereotypically male attributes (Arkkelin and Simmons, 1985, Martell et al., 1998, Powell and Butterfield, 1979, Powell and Butterfield, 1984, Powell and Butterfield, 1989, Rosenwasser and Dean, 1989, Schein, 1973, Schein, 1975 and Schein, 2001). According to role congruity theory, the incongruity between female gender stereotypes and the leader role leads to prejudice that accounts for the ample empirical findings indicating less favorable attitudes toward female than male leaders, greater difficulty for women to attain top leadership roles, and greater difficulty for women to be viewed as effective leaders. 1.2. Stereotype priming and stereotype threat In addition to creating negative expectations and prejudice against members of devalued groups, negative stereotypes can impact the target's own thoughts and behaviors (Eden, 1992 and Hoyt and Chemers, 2008). Researchers have distinguished between stereotype priming effects and stereotype threat effects. Stereotype priming can lead to behavior consistent with and thereby confirming a stereotype (Wheeler & Petty, 2001), but it does not involve the critical ‘knowing and being’ aspect of stereotype threat that requires people to both know the stereotype and be a member of the targeted group (Marx & Stapel, 2006b). Stereotype priming confirmation has been shown across a variety of stereotypes from individuals walking slower when primed with the stereotype of the elderly to people showing enhanced cognitive performance when primed with the professor stereotype (Bargh et al., 1996 and Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg, 1998). Stereotype threat involves ‘knowing and being’ and occurs when an individual is in a position to confirm a negative stereotype that disparages the performance ability of members of their own social group. Stereotype threat theory provides a powerful account of how stereotypes can contribute to the underperformance of members of stigmatized groups (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). The majority of the literature on stereotype threat shows that the threat results in deleterious vulnerability responses. Vulnerability effects of stereotype threat have been demonstrated across a wide variety of social groups and domains including African-Americans and Latinos on intellectual tasks (Aronson et al., 1998, Gonzales et al., 2002 and Steele and Aronson, 1995), women on math tasks (Inzlicht and Ben-Zeev, 2000 and Schmader, 2002), and European Americans in sports (Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999). Stereotype threat, however, does not always lead to vulnerability responses. Evidence has begun to accumulate showing that, at times, individuals demonstrate reactance responses when presented with a negative stereotype associated with their group (Hoyt and Blascovich, 2007 and Kray et al., 2004). Stereotype reactance occurs when individuals primed with a negative stereotype regarding the performance ability of members of their social group react or respond with engagement in counterstereotypical behavior, such as women increasing negotiation performance when relevant gender stereotypes are activated (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001). The manner in which a stereotype is activated has been shown to play an important role in target's responses to the stereotype. For example, Kray and colleagues found that women demonstrate stereotype reactance in negotiation situations and outperform men, but only when the stereotype has been primed explicitly (Kray et al., 2001 and Kray et al., 2004). In sum, stereotype threat has been shown to result in both vulnerability and reactance responses. 1.3. Self-efficacy and stereotype activation effects Self-efficacy, a key construct derived from Bandura's social-cognitive theory (1986), refers to “beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p.3). Self-efficacy is not an assessment of an individual's number of skills but rather represents people's beliefs of what they can do with what they have. A substantial literature on self-efficacy indicates that it is an important motivational construct that influences choices, goals, effort, persistence, thought patterns, performance, and stress reactions (Bandura, 1982, Bandura, 1986, Bandura, 1997, Bandura and Cervone, 1983, Bandura and Wood, 1989 and Taylor et al., 1984). Self-efficacy has been shown to be particularly important construct in the leadership domain (Chemers et al., 2000, Hoyt et al., 2003 and Shea and Howell, 1999). The extant research on self-efficacy reveals that people with higher self-efficacy expectancies are generally more successful, effective, and healthier than those with lower levels. Bandura (1997) contends that the “self-concept largely reflects people's beliefs in their personal efficacy” (p. 11). Thus, task performance in a particular domain is highly self-relevant for those with strong self-efficacy percepts in that domain. Marx and Stapel, 2006a and Marx and Stapel, 2006b have demonstrated the critical role that self-relevance plays in eliciting stereotype threat responses. Specifically, they showed that when a stereotype is self-relevant people demonstrated stereotype threat responses, but when the stereotype was not self-relevant they demonstrated priming responses. Similarly, Schmader (2002) showed that only people who are strongly identified with the devalued social category, such as gender, show threat effects. Accordingly, as task performance is highly self-relevant for those with high self-efficacy within a stereotyped domain, individuals with high levels of efficacy will have greater threat-based concerns than those with lower levels of self-efficacy and will likely show stereotype threat effects. Likewise, those with lower levels of efficacy, for whom the domain is less self-relevant, will likely show stereotype priming effects. Indeed, in previous research, we found that the effects of the explicit negative female leadership stereotype on women were moderated by leadership efficacy such that high efficacy leaders exhibited responses consistent with reactance processes (Hoyt, 2005 and Hoyt and Blascovich, 2007). We contend that these positive reactance responses result from experienced psychological threat, similar to stereotype vulnerability responses. Brehm's (1966) reactance model asserts that people respond to threats to their freedom by reasserting their sense of freedom. When highly confident female leaders are confronted with a stereotype that calls into question the leadership ability of women, they likely regard that biased expectation as a threat to their ability to engage in and be viewed as successful in leadership positions. Accordingly, while the behaviors (e.g., performance) engaged in by those reacting against the stereotype are positive (counter to the negative stereotypical expectations), they are likely driven by a psychological state of threat. Indeed, psychological reactance theory associates the state of reactance with emotional stress and anxiety. In this study, we extended our previous research by adding cardiovascular measures based on the biopsychosocial model of threat and challenge to determine whether high efficacy women are indeed threatened by the negative leader gender stereotype and whether women with lower self-efficacy for leadership are not threatened by the gender stereotype. In support, research has shown that individuals show high task engagement and increased cardiovascular reactivity when performing in a self-relevant domain, particularly under difficult circumstances (Brehm and Self, 1989, Gendolla, 1999 and Gendolla and Richter, 2005). Similarly, individuals with higher self-efficacy in active coping situations exhibited greater increases in cardiovascular reactivity than those with lower levels of efficacy (Gerin, Litt, Deich, & Pickering, 1995). 1.4. Psychological states of threat and challenge According to the biopsychosocial (BPS) model (Blascovich and Mendes, 2000 and Blascovich and Tomaka, 1996), challenge and threat represent oppositional anchors of a goal relevant motivational state resulting from the relative balance of situational demands and available resources. More specifically, challenge occurs when personal resources are evaluated by an individual as equaling or exceeding the demands of the situation, and threat occurs when demands are evaluated as exceeding resources. Such evaluations may be implicit, explicit, or both. Required effort; danger; uncertainty; knowledge, skills, and abilities; dispositional characteristics; and external support can contribute to either demand or resource evaluations or both. The BPS model has been used successfully to distinguish threat and challenge motivations under gender stereotype activation (Vick, Seery, Blascovich, & Weisbuch, 2008). 1.5. Cardiovascular responses Within the context of non-metabolically demanding motivated performance situations, Blascovich and colleagues have validated cardiovascular indexes of challenge and threat based on patterns of cardiovascular reactivity (Blascovich and Mendes, 2000 and Blascovich and Tomaka, 1996). Motivated performance situations are self- or goal-relevant and require active, instrumental cognitive responses (e.g., speech delivery, negotiating, and test taking). The cardiovascular patterns involve the sympathetic-adrenomedullary (SAM) and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axes. Specifically, challenge evokes increased activation of the SAM axis including sympathetic neural stimulation of the myocardium. This sympathetic stimulation enhances heart rate and ventricular contractility thereby producing increases in cardiac output. This increase in myocardial performance is accompanied by adrenal medullary driven vasodilation in the large muscular beds and bronchi that results in a decrease of systemic vascular resistance. This vasodilation is a function of adrenal medullary release of epinephrine. Threat also evokes increases in the SAM axis, as in the challenge pattern, but it also increases activity of the HPA axis, more specifically the pituitary-adrenocortical (PAC) axis. The PAC axis activation serves to inhibit the adrenal medullary release of epinephrine generated from the SAM axis. Thus, the threat pattern is marked by increases in heart rate and ventricular contractility but with little change in cardiac output and little change or even increases in systemic vascular resistance.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The research here attempted to comprehensively study the influence of leadership self-efficacy and the gender-leader stereotype by examining behavioral, self-report, and cardiovascular responses to performance in the leadership domain. Our findings were consistent with the prediction that leadership efficacy would moderate the impact of the gender–leader stereotype on female leaders. Women with high levels of efficacy evinced stereotype threat effects whereas those lower in efficacy showed stereotype priming effects. Specifically, women with high leadership self-efficacy percepts showed cardiovascular patterns of threat under both explicit and non-explicit stereotype activation whereas those with low leadership efficacy evidenced challenge patterns. Additionally, the high efficacy leaders who experienced stereotype threat showed positive reactance responses to the stereotype. Those with low efficacy were not threatened but they did assimilate to the stereotype, and even more so when the stereotype was explicit as opposed to non-explicit, by showing more negative behavioral and self-report responses. In sum, these findings not only point to self-efficacy as a moderator of stereotype threat and priming effects but they also indicate that stereotype reactance stems from experienced threat, thus indicating that the relationship between negative group stereotypes and individual performance is far from simple.