重新审视 "经理人思维 "与 "男性思维":作为主持人的种族

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Sex Roles Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1007/s11199-024-01542-6
Fiona Adjei Boateng, Madeline E. Heilman
{"title":"重新审视 \"经理人思维 \"与 \"男性思维\":作为主持人的种族","authors":"Fiona Adjei Boateng, Madeline E. Heilman","doi":"10.1007/s11199-024-01542-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Two studies examined the effects of race on the <i>think manager-think male</i> effect, which has shown men in general to be viewed more similarly to successful managers than women in general. The first study directly manipulated the race of the male or female target in the think manager-think-male framework and examined the effects on two key measures of agency – competence and assertiveness – as well as on communality. Results indicated that the differences in agency characterizations between men and successful managers and women and successful managers that are emblematic of the think-manager-think-male effect were not always evident. While the think manager-think male effect was observed for men and women “in general” as well as for men and women designated as White, it did not hold for Black and Asian targets, whose characterizations were influenced not only by gender stereotypes but also by racial stereotypes. Additionally, a potential “think manager-think <i>female</i>” effect, as indicated by greater overlap in communality ratings between women in general and successful managers than between men in general and successful managers held for targets who were White and Black, but not for those who were Asian. A follow-up study focused on potential implications of the findings from the first study and indicated that competence was believed to be more important than either communality or assertiveness, while communality was believed to be more important than assertiveness in determining managerial success. These results raise questions about the universality of the think-manager-think-male effect and the scope of its generalizability. These findings also add to the growing concern about the precision and application of gender bias research findings when attention is not paid to crucial intersecting identities such as race.</p>","PeriodicalId":48425,"journal":{"name":"Sex Roles","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Think Manager-Think Male Re-Examined: Race as a Moderator\",\"authors\":\"Fiona Adjei Boateng, Madeline E. Heilman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11199-024-01542-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Two studies examined the effects of race on the <i>think manager-think male</i> effect, which has shown men in general to be viewed more similarly to successful managers than women in general. The first study directly manipulated the race of the male or female target in the think manager-think-male framework and examined the effects on two key measures of agency – competence and assertiveness – as well as on communality. Results indicated that the differences in agency characterizations between men and successful managers and women and successful managers that are emblematic of the think-manager-think-male effect were not always evident. While the think manager-think male effect was observed for men and women “in general” as well as for men and women designated as White, it did not hold for Black and Asian targets, whose characterizations were influenced not only by gender stereotypes but also by racial stereotypes. Additionally, a potential “think manager-think <i>female</i>” effect, as indicated by greater overlap in communality ratings between women in general and successful managers than between men in general and successful managers held for targets who were White and Black, but not for those who were Asian. A follow-up study focused on potential implications of the findings from the first study and indicated that competence was believed to be more important than either communality or assertiveness, while communality was believed to be more important than assertiveness in determining managerial success. These results raise questions about the universality of the think-manager-think-male effect and the scope of its generalizability. These findings also add to the growing concern about the precision and application of gender bias research findings when attention is not paid to crucial intersecting identities such as race.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sex Roles\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sex Roles\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01542-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sex Roles","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01542-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有两项研究考察了种族对 "认为管理者-认为男性 "效应的影响,该效应表明一般男性比一般女性更容易被视为成功的管理者。第一项研究直接操纵了 "认为经理人-认为男性 "框架中男性或女性目标的种族,并考察了其对两个关键的代理衡量标准--能力和自信--以及社区性的影响。结果表明,"认为管理者-认为男性 "效应所代表的男性与成功管理者之间以及女性与成功管理者之间的代理特征差异并不总是很明显。虽然在 "一般 "男性和女性以及被指定为白人的男性和女性身上观察到了 "认为管理者-认为男性 "效应,但这一效应在黑人和亚裔目标身上却不成立,因为他们的特征描述不仅受到性别刻板印象的影响,还受到种族刻板印象的影响。此外,潜在的 "认为经理人-认为女性 "效应,即一般女性与成功经理人之间的共性评价重叠程度大于一般男性与成功经理人之间的共性评价重叠程度,在白人和黑人目标群体中成立,但在亚裔目标群体中不成立。一项后续研究关注了第一项研究结果的潜在影响,结果表明,在决定管理成功与否方面,能力被认为比共性或自信更重要,而共性被认为比自信更重要。这些结果对 "认为管理者是男性 "这一效应的普遍性及其普遍性的范围提出了质疑。这些研究结果也使人们更加关注性别偏见研究结果的准确性和应用性,因为如果不关注种族等重要的交叉身份的话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Think Manager-Think Male Re-Examined: Race as a Moderator

Two studies examined the effects of race on the think manager-think male effect, which has shown men in general to be viewed more similarly to successful managers than women in general. The first study directly manipulated the race of the male or female target in the think manager-think-male framework and examined the effects on two key measures of agency – competence and assertiveness – as well as on communality. Results indicated that the differences in agency characterizations between men and successful managers and women and successful managers that are emblematic of the think-manager-think-male effect were not always evident. While the think manager-think male effect was observed for men and women “in general” as well as for men and women designated as White, it did not hold for Black and Asian targets, whose characterizations were influenced not only by gender stereotypes but also by racial stereotypes. Additionally, a potential “think manager-think female” effect, as indicated by greater overlap in communality ratings between women in general and successful managers than between men in general and successful managers held for targets who were White and Black, but not for those who were Asian. A follow-up study focused on potential implications of the findings from the first study and indicated that competence was believed to be more important than either communality or assertiveness, while communality was believed to be more important than assertiveness in determining managerial success. These results raise questions about the universality of the think-manager-think-male effect and the scope of its generalizability. These findings also add to the growing concern about the precision and application of gender bias research findings when attention is not paid to crucial intersecting identities such as race.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sex Roles
Sex Roles Multiple-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Sex Roles: A Journal of Research is a global, multidisciplinary, scholarly, social and behavioral science journal with a feminist perspective. It publishes original research reports as well as original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles that explore how gender organizes people’s lives and their surrounding worlds, including gender identities, belief systems, representations, interactions, relations, organizations, institutions, and statuses. The range of topics covered is broad and dynamic, including but not limited to the study of gendered attitudes, stereotyping, and sexism; gendered contexts, culture, and power; the intersections of gender with race, class, sexual orientation, age, and other statuses and identities; body image; violence; gender (including masculinities) and feminist identities; human sexuality; communication studies; work and organizations; gendered development across the life span or life course; mental, physical, and reproductive health and health care; sports; interpersonal relationships and attraction; activism and social change; economic, political, and legal inequities; and methodological challenges and innovations in doing gender research.
期刊最新文献
Not All of Me Is Welcome Here: The Experiences of Trans and Gender Expansive Employees of Color in the U.S. Being Not Binary: Experiences and Functions of Gender and Gender Communities In Their Own Words: Re-Examining Gender Differences in Career Interests and Motivations in a New Generation Think Manager-Think Male Re-Examined: Race as a Moderator Playing the Game Differently: How Women Leaders in Academia Are Challenging Neopatriarchy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1