人们对男性和女性的领导方式不同吗?多种方法证明,群体性别会影响领导者的主导地位。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Holly R Engstrom,Kristin Laurin,David C Zuroff,Toni Schmader
{"title":"人们对男性和女性的领导方式不同吗?多种方法证明,群体性别会影响领导者的主导地位。","authors":"Holly R Engstrom,Kristin Laurin,David C Zuroff,Toni Schmader","doi":"10.1037/xge0001735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Leaders' behavior can powerfully alter group outcomes. In a programmatic series of preregistered studies, we provide the first rigorous test of whether and why leaders behave differently toward groups of men versus women. In a within-subjects pilot study (N = 336) and in between-subjects Study 1 (N = 368), American adults said they would lead groups of men (vs. women) in a more dominant (e.g., intimidating, controlling) manner. Study 2 (N = 361) replicated this pattern and found that people lead mixed-gender groups similarly to how they lead groups of all women. In Study 3 (N = 314), coaches of boys' (vs. girls') sports teams-real leaders of gender-segregated groups-also said that they led more dominantly. In Study 4 (N = 161), students who believed that they would be leading men (vs. women) were rated by trained coders as more dominant in a videotaped introduction to their group. The pilot study and Studies 1, 2, and 4 all tested for and found evidence suggesting that the underlying mechanism was related to leaders' stereotypes about their followers' communion. In Study 5 (N = 844), men evaluated dominant leaders more positively than women, suggesting that followers may reinforce leaders' tendency to lead men with more dominance. Leaders are likely to treat-and be reinforced for treating-groups of men in a more dominant way, with implications for group outcomes and group members' well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":"249 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do people lead men and women differently? Multimethod evidence that group gender affects leaders' dominance.\",\"authors\":\"Holly R Engstrom,Kristin Laurin,David C Zuroff,Toni Schmader\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Leaders' behavior can powerfully alter group outcomes. In a programmatic series of preregistered studies, we provide the first rigorous test of whether and why leaders behave differently toward groups of men versus women. In a within-subjects pilot study (N = 336) and in between-subjects Study 1 (N = 368), American adults said they would lead groups of men (vs. women) in a more dominant (e.g., intimidating, controlling) manner. Study 2 (N = 361) replicated this pattern and found that people lead mixed-gender groups similarly to how they lead groups of all women. In Study 3 (N = 314), coaches of boys' (vs. girls') sports teams-real leaders of gender-segregated groups-also said that they led more dominantly. In Study 4 (N = 161), students who believed that they would be leading men (vs. women) were rated by trained coders as more dominant in a videotaped introduction to their group. The pilot study and Studies 1, 2, and 4 all tested for and found evidence suggesting that the underlying mechanism was related to leaders' stereotypes about their followers' communion. In Study 5 (N = 844), men evaluated dominant leaders more positively than women, suggesting that followers may reinforce leaders' tendency to lead men with more dominance. Leaders are likely to treat-and be reinforced for treating-groups of men in a more dominant way, with implications for group outcomes and group members' well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\"249 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001735\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001735","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

领导者的行为可以有力地改变团队的结果。在一系列预先注册的程序化研究中,我们首次对领导者对待男性和女性群体是否以及为什么会有不同的行为进行了严格的测试。在一项受试者内部的初步研究(N = 336)和一项受试者之间的研究(N = 368)中,美国成年人表示,他们会以一种更具支配性(例如,恐吓、控制)的方式领导一群男性(与女性)。研究2 (N = 361)重复了这一模式,发现人们领导混合性别群体的方式与领导所有女性群体的方式相似。在研究3 (N = 314)中,男孩(与女孩)运动队的教练——性别隔离群体的真正领导者——也说他们的领导更占优势。在研究4 (N = 161)中,那些相信自己会成为领导男性(相对于女性)的学生被训练有素的编码器评为在向他们的小组介绍的录像中更具主导地位。试点研究和研究1、2和4都测试并发现了证据,表明潜在的机制与领导者对下属交流的刻板印象有关。在研究5 (N = 844)中,男性比女性更积极地评价支配型领导者,这表明追随者可能会加强领导者领导更具支配性的男性的倾向。领导者可能会以一种更强势的方式对待男性群体,并因此得到强化,这对群体结果和群体成员的福祉都有影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do people lead men and women differently? Multimethod evidence that group gender affects leaders' dominance.
Leaders' behavior can powerfully alter group outcomes. In a programmatic series of preregistered studies, we provide the first rigorous test of whether and why leaders behave differently toward groups of men versus women. In a within-subjects pilot study (N = 336) and in between-subjects Study 1 (N = 368), American adults said they would lead groups of men (vs. women) in a more dominant (e.g., intimidating, controlling) manner. Study 2 (N = 361) replicated this pattern and found that people lead mixed-gender groups similarly to how they lead groups of all women. In Study 3 (N = 314), coaches of boys' (vs. girls') sports teams-real leaders of gender-segregated groups-also said that they led more dominantly. In Study 4 (N = 161), students who believed that they would be leading men (vs. women) were rated by trained coders as more dominant in a videotaped introduction to their group. The pilot study and Studies 1, 2, and 4 all tested for and found evidence suggesting that the underlying mechanism was related to leaders' stereotypes about their followers' communion. In Study 5 (N = 844), men evaluated dominant leaders more positively than women, suggesting that followers may reinforce leaders' tendency to lead men with more dominance. Leaders are likely to treat-and be reinforced for treating-groups of men in a more dominant way, with implications for group outcomes and group members' well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信