Upload
denisa-elena
View
184
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine?A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms
Anne M. KoenigUniversity of San Diego
Alice H. EaglyNorthwestern University
Abigail A. MitchellNebraska Wesleyan University
Tiina RistikariUniversity of Tampere
This meta-analysis examined the extent to which stereotypes of leaders are culturally masculine. Theprimary studies fit into 1 of 3 paradigms: (a) In Scheins (1973) think managerthink male paradigm, 40studies with 51 effect sizes compared the similarity of male and leader stereotypes and the similarity offemale and leader stereotypes; (b) in Powell and Butterfields (1979) agencycommunion paradigm, 22studies with 47 effect sizes compared stereotypes of leaders agency and communion; and (c) in Shinars(1975) masculinityfemininity paradigm, 7 studies with 101 effect sizes represented stereotypes ofleadership-related occupations on a single masculinityfemininity dimension. Analyses implementedappropriate random and mixed effects models. All 3 paradigms demonstrated overall masculinity ofleader stereotypes: (a) In the think managerthink male paradigm, intraclass correlation ! .25 forthe womenleaders similarity and intraclass correlation ! .62 for the menleaders similarity; (b) in theagencycommunion paradigm, g ! 1.55, indicating greater agency than communion; and (c) in themasculinityfemininity paradigm, g ! 0.92, indicating greater masculinity than the androgynous scalemidpoint. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses indicated that this masculine construal of leadershiphas decreased over time and was greater for male than female research participants. In addition,stereotypes portrayed leaders as less masculine in educational organizations than in other domains andin moderate- than in high-status leader roles. This article considers the relation of these findings to Eaglyand Karaus (2002) role congruity theory, which proposed contextual influences on the incongruitybetween stereotypes of women and leaders. The implications for prejudice against women leaders arealso considered.
Keywords: leadership, management, gender stereotypes, gender roles, meta-analysis
The characteristics that people commonly ascribe to women,men, and leaders contribute to the challenges that women face inobtaining leadership roles and performing well in them.1 Culturalstereotypes can make it seem that women do not have what it takesfor important leadership roles. This cultural mismatch, or roleincongruity, between women and the perceived demands of lead-ership underlies biased evaluations of women as leaders (Eagly &Karau, 2002). Fueling this mismatch is an inconsistency betweenthe predominantly communal qualities (e.g., nice, compassionate)that people associate with women and the predominantly agentic
qualities (e.g., assertive, competitive) that they believe are requiredfor success as a leader (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Given that agenticqualities are ascribed more to men than women (e.g., Gallup NewsService, 2001; Spence & Buckner, 2000), leadership is generallyassociated with masculinity. This article reports a meta-analysis ofresearch that has assessed the cultural masculinity of leader ste-reotypes and explores the conditions under which this masculinityis more or less pronounced.
The Importance of Stereotypes to Womens Accessto Leadership
Stereotypes often are a potent barrier to womens advancementto positions of leadership. This assertion is the consensus view not
1 In this article, we use the terms leader and manager interchangeably.Although a distinction between leadership and management is useful insome contexts (e.g., Bennis, 1989), the research that we review does notallow leader and managerial roles or functions to be separated. Also, weuse the terms sex and sexes to denote the grouping of people into femaleand male categories. The term gender refers to the meanings that societiesand individuals ascribe to these female and male categories. We do notintend to use these terms to give priority to any class of causes that mayunderlie sex and gender effects (see Wood & Eagly, 2010).
This article was published Online First May 30, 2011.Anne M. Koenig, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of
San Diego; Alice H. Eagly, Department of Psychology, NorthwesternUniversity; Abigail A. Mitchell, Department of Psychology, NebraskaWesleyan University; Tiina Ristikari, Department of Social Research,University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Anne M. Koenig was supported in part by the National Institutes ofHealth under a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award(1 F31 MH074251).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anne M.Koenig, Department of Psychological Sciences, 5998 Alcala Park, Univer-sity of San Diego, San Diego, CA 92110. E-mail: [email protected]
Psychological Bulletin 2011 American Psychological Association2011, Vol. 137, No. 4, 616642 0033-2909/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023557
616
Ursula Liebhart
Ursula Liebhart
Ursula Liebhart
Ursula Liebhartjhdfhhdfkjfdn
only of social and organizational psychologists (e.g., Glick &Fiske, 2007; Heilman & Parks-Stamm, 2007; S. K. Johnson, Mur-phy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008), but also of women who havesubstantial experience as leaders. For example, a survey of 705women at the vice president level and above in Fortune 1,000corporations found that 72% agreed or strongly agreed that ste-reotypes about womens roles and abilities are a barrier to wom-ens advancement to the highest levels (Wellington, Kropf, &Gerkovich, 2003).
The damaging effects of stereotypes for women as leaders donot stem from beliefs about women that are mainly negative. Onthe contrary, consistent with the women-are-wonderful effect (Ea-gly & Mladinic, 1994; Langford & MacKinnon, 2000), women areregarded as the nicer, kinder sex and thus have a cultural stereo-type that is in general more positive than that of men. Neverthe-less, women often experience workplace discrimination (Heilman& Eagly, 2008). Theorists have resolved this paradox by reasoningthat it is not the evaluative content of the stereotype of women butits mismatch with many desirable work roles that underlies biasedevaluations in many employment settings (e.g., Eagly & Karau,2002; Heilman, 2001; Hogue & Lord, 2007; Lyness & Heilman,2006).
In Eagly and Karaus (2002) role congruity model, the mismatchthat produces biased evaluation is between stereotypes of women(e.g., Spence & Buckner, 2000) and stereotypes of leaders (e.g.,Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Lord & Maher, 1993; Offermann,Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994). In this model, stereotype content isframed in terms of agency and communion, with communion themore important theme in the female stereotype and agency themore important theme in both leader and male stereotypes. Menare therefore seen as more similar to the leader stereotype thanwomen are, producing disadvantage for women. In Heilmans(1983, 2001) broader lack-of-fit model, to the extent that a work-place role is inconsistent with the attributes ascribed to an indi-vidual, she or he would suffer from perceived lack of fit, producingincreased expectations of failure and decreased expectations ofsuccess. The incongruity between construals of women and leadersis thus one type of lack of fit.
These communal and agentic meanings ascribed to women andmen form a constant backdrop to social interaction, coloring thejudgments made about people encountered in organizations andother contexts (Wood & Eagly, 2010). In both the role congruity(Eagly & Karau, 2002) and the lack-of-fit models (Heilman, 2001),these beliefs comprise two kinds of expectations or norms: de-scriptive beliefs (or stereotypes), which are consensual expecta-tions about what members of a social group actually do, andinjunctive (or prescriptive) beliefs, which are consensual expecta-tions about what group members ought to do or ideally would do(Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Therefore, women are the targets of twoforms of prejudice against them as leaders: a deficit in the ascrip-tion of leadership ability to them and, compared to that of men, aless favorable evaluation of their agentic leadership behavior. Inother words, descriptively, women seem less usual or natural inmost leadership roles; and prescriptively, women often seem in-appropriate or presumptuous when they display the agentic behav-ior often required by these roles (see also Burgess & Borgida,1999).
Because individuals are commonly assimilated to group stereo-types (e.g., von Hippel, Sekaquaptewa, & Vargas, 1995), an eval-
uative penalty is exacted from women leaders or potential leadersregardless of whether they possess the qualities appropriate forleadership roles. This penalty consists of unfavorable performanceexpectations, which in turn enable biased judgments and lessfavorable evaluations (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992; Lyness& Heilman, 2006). Discrimination is the behavioral outcome ofthese processes (Eagly & Diekman, 2005).
How strong is the evidence for the masculinity of leader stereo-types? Partial reviews of research on this question have substan-tiated the claim about leaders cultural masculinity (e.g., Duehr &Bono, 2006; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Powell,Butterfield, & Parent, 2002; Schein, 2001). However, these re-views have not identified all of the relevant research paradigms oraccessed all of the available studies within each paradigm orestimated the magnitude of the effects. Our integration of theresearch literature remedies these omissions and tests the propo-sitions of role congruity theory concerning the conditions underwhich incongruity between the leader and female gender stereo-type is stronger or weaker (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
Three Paradigms for Examining the Masculinity ofLeader Roles
Research in three separate paradigms has addressed the culturalmasculinity of leader stereotypes. Best known is the thinkmanagerthink male paradigm, which was created by Schein(1973). This method provides a direct test of the similarity ofleader stereotypes to male and female stereotypes. In these studies,separate groups of participants rated a leader category (e.g., suc-cessful middle managers), women, or men on a large number ofgender-stereotypical traits. The researchers correlated the meanratings of managers or leaders with the mean ratings of men and,separately, with the mean ratings of women. These correlationsrepresent the similarity of stereotypes of men and women tocultural concepts of leadership. The think managerthink maleeffect occurs when men and leaders are similar and women andleaders are not similar. Although these studies typically provideonly these correlations and not information on the content of thestereotypes of men, women, or leaders, the method yields a directtest of the central assumptions of Eagly and Karaus (2002) rolecongruity model and Heilmans (1983, 2001) lack-of-fit model asapplied to leader roles.
A second method, the agencycommunion paradigm, consistsof studies that examined the gender-stereotypical content of theleader stereotype (Powell & Butterfield, 1979). In these studies,participants rated a leader category (e.g., good manager) on sep-arate masculine (i.e., agentic) and feminine (i.e., communal) gen-der stereotyping scales. Comparison of participants mean ratingson the two scales determined whether the stereotype of leaders wasmore masculine than feminine. By directly addressing the contentof leader roles, this method complements but differs from thesimilarity comparisons yielded by the think managerthink maleparadigm.
A third method, the masculinityfemininity paradigm, consistsof studies that appeared in the research literature as a test of themasculine versus feminine content of occupational stereotypes(Shinar, 1975). A substantial minority of the occupations chosenfor these studies were leader roles (e.g., university president,mayor). Participants rated each of these leader roles, among other
617MASCULINITY OF LEADER STEREOTYPES
occupational groups, on a single bipolar masculine versus femininerating scale. This paradigm became less popular subsequent tocritiques pointing out that bipolar masculinityfemininity scales donot allow masculinity and femininity to vary independently butforce them to function as opposites (e.g., Constantinople, 1973).Nonetheless, these data are informative in part because researchersinvestigated various specific types of leaders rather than merelyleaders (or managers) in general. If the mean ratings of mostcategories of leaders were on the masculine side of a masculinityfemininity scale, the studies would provide a conceptual replica-tion of the basic tendency for leader roles to be stereotyped asmasculine.
Our project separately meta-analyzed studies in these threeparadigms because their distinctively different study designs andmeasuring instruments precluded combination across the para-digms (see Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009, pp.359363). The think managerthink male studies correlate (a)ratings of men with ratings of managers and (b) ratings of womenwith ratings of managers. In this think managerthink male para-digm, participants are randomly assigned to rate one of the threegroups (women, men, or leaders). In contrast, in the much simpleragencycommunion and masculinityfemininity paradigms, stud-ies obtain ratings only of leaders in general or specific leader roles(and not women or men) on gender-stereotypical traits or scales.Although the agency communion and masculinityfemininitystudies are similar in presenting only a leader group (or groups) toparticipants, these two paradigms feature different types of mea-suring instruments. The masculinityfemininity studies use a sin-gle bipolar masculine versus feminine rating scale, whereas theagencycommunion studies use two separate scales, one assessingagency (or masculinity) and the other assessing communion (orfemininity). Therefore, in the masculinityfemininity paradigm,the effect sizes are based on a point estimate (in relation to thescale midpoint). In the agencycommunion paradigm, the effectsizes are based on a comparison between ratings on the two scales.For these reasons, the data are noncomparable across the threeparadigms and analyzed separately. Yet all three types of studiestest the correspondence between gender and leader stereotypes,and the studies are methodologically quite homogenous withineach paradigm.
Variation in Stereotypes About Men, Women, andLeaders
Eagly and Karau (2002) hypothesized that the incongruity be-tween leader stereotypes and the female gender stereotype is notfixed but varies with change in either stereotype. This meta-analysis examines several factors hypothesized to influence thisincongruity.
Change in Stereotypes Over Time
Cultural change over historical time is one of these factors,given that stereotypes may have changed in a manner that reduceswomens role incongruity in relation to leadership. Although somehints of the decreasing masculinity of leadership have appeared inprior reviews (e.g., Duehr & Bono, 2006; Eagly & Sczesny, 2009;Powell et al., 2002; Schein, 2001), generalizations have remaineduncertain. Temporal comparisons of relevant studies based on their
dates of publication, which extend back to 1973, allow our meta-analysis to clarify whether the cultural representation of leadershiphas changed. A shift in an androgynous direction would easewomens role incongruity problem in relation to leader roles.
Why might role incongruity have lessened? Organizational ex-perts have often argued that definitions of good managerial prac-tices have changed in response to features of the contemporaryorganizational environment, such as fast social and technologicalchange and unprecedented complexity of organizations missionsand contexts (e.g., Avolio, 1999; Kanter, 1997; Lipman-Blumen,2000). According to such analyses, these changed conditions com-promise the efficacy of top-down command-and-control leadershipand foster democratic relationships, participatory decision-making,delegation, and team-based leadership skills (e.g., Gergen, 2005;Kanter, 1997; Lipman-Blumen, 2000; McCauley, 2004). Suchdescriptions are manifestly less masculine than many traditionalmodels of good leadership.
Another possibility is that the increase of women leaders mightproduce less masculine and more androgynous beliefs about lead-ership. Evidence of the increase of women leaders abounds, in-cluding growth over time in womens emergence as leaders in fieldand laboratory studies of leader emergence in initially leaderlessgroups (Eagly & Karau, 1991). In the United States, women nowconstitute 25% of chief executives when all organizations areconsidered and 43% of all employees in management, business,and financial operations occupations (vs. 31% in 1983; U.S. De-partment of Labor, 2007, 2010b). Women have also become morenumerous in highly visible political leader roles, now constituting17% of the U.S. Congress (vs. 2% in 1950; Center for AmericanWomen and Politics, 2011) and 12% of governors (vs. 0% in 1950;Center for American Women and Politics, 2010). Women haveincreased in leadership roles in many other nations as well (seeEuropean Commission, 2010; Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2010).
Evidence that the mere presence of more women leaders canchange perceptions of leader roles emerged in research on wom-ens occupancy of the chief village councilor role in West Bengal(Beaman, Chattopadhyay, Duflo, Pande, & Topalova, 2009). Peo-ple in the villages that were mandated (vs. not mandated) by thegovernment to elect a woman for this leader role not only per-ceived their current women leaders and women leaders in generalas more effective but also reduced their implicit bias towardassociating men with leadership and elected more women to lead-ership positions in the next election. As additional evidence thatthe presence of women leaders changes perceptions of leadership,female college students with more women professors as rolemodels reduced their implicit associations of leadership qualitieswith men and communal qualities with women (Dasgupta &Asgari, 2004). Empirical research thus has demonstrated that anincrease in the number of women leaders can produce a moreandrogynous concept of leadership and thereby reduce bias towardcurrent and potential women leaders.
What about change in gender stereotypes? If gender stereotypesreflect the differing placements of men and women into socialroles (Wood & Eagly, 2010), womens increase in labor forceparticipation (to 61% vs. 33% in 1950; U.S. Department of Labor,2010a) and in leader roles might predict change in the femalestereotype. However, women still perform the majority of domes-tic work (e.g., Bianchi, Robinson, & Milkie, 2006), and the ma-jority of employed women have remained concentrated in tradi-
618 KOENIG, EAGLY, MITCHELL, AND RISTIKARI
tional occupations. The six most common in the United States aresecretary and administrative assistant; registered nurse; elementaryand middle school teacher; cashier; retail salespersons; and nurs-ing, psychiatric, and home health aides (U.S. Department of Labor,2011). Therefore, it is not surprising that the partial reviews ofgender stereotyping conducted so far have not yielded evidence ofdecreased stereotyping over time (e.g., Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo,& Lueptow, 2001). Nonetheless, the masculinity of leader rolescould be changing without much change in stereotypes about menand women in general.
In sum, leader stereotypes may have become less masculineover time. If the change in leader stereotypes is related to increasesof women in leadership roles, then the number of women leadersshould be related to the masculinity of leadership. Because stereo-type change presumably reflects the updating of impressions basedon new observations (e.g., Weber & Crocker, 1983), leader ste-reotypes at any one time point should correspond best to contem-poraneous observations of women in leader roles.
Other Influences on the Masculinity of Leader RolesA priori moderators. As Eagly and Karau (2002) argued,
men may have a more masculine leader stereotype than women do.There is some existing evidence that men, more than women,believe that good leaders have masculine qualities (e.g., Atwater,Brett, Waldman, DiMare, & Hayden, 2004; Schein, 2001) andmanifest prejudice against female leaders (Eagly et al., 1992).Such effects are understandable, given that men are less likely thanwomen to have experience with female managers (McTague,Stainback, & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2009; Stainback &Tomaskovic-Devey, 2009) and that mens group interest favorsretaining these roles for men. As a result, women leaders, partic-ularly as newcomers entering male-dominated roles, can encounterresistance, especially from men (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Our meta-analysis offers quantitative tests of the extent to which the incon-gruity between women and leaders is greater in men than women.
Role incongruity should also reflect organizational contexts andthe level of leader roles in organizational hierarchies (Eagly &Karau, 2002). Leadership may be less masculine, for example, infemale-dominated fields such as elementary education, nursing, orlibrarianship (U.S. Department of Labor, 2010b). Because thesefields are thought to require traditionally feminine skills, such aswarmth, compassion, and caring for others (Cejka & Eagly, 1999;Glick, 1991), the characteristics that people associate with leader-ship roles in these occupations are likely to incorporate morecommunal attributes. Also, consistent with the preponderance ofmen in executive positions in many organizations (e.g., 84% ofcorporate officers in Fortune 500 companies; Catalyst, 2010),construals of leadership are likely to be more masculine for higherstatus leader positions, thereby increasing role incongruity forwomen. Our inclusion of studies examining various types of lead-ership positions allows comparisons of leader stereotypes betweendifferent organizational contexts and levels of leadership withinorganizations.
Comparisons of leader stereotypes across nations are also im-portant, as Eagly and Karau (2002) also argued. Narrative review-ers have suggested that leader roles are less masculine in theUnited States than in other nations (e.g., Schein, 2001), but therehas been no quantitative analysis across nations. Variation in the
percentages of women (vs. men) in leader roles could underlie anynational differences as well as temporal differences. The partici-pation of women in leader roles and the overall status of womenare considerably greater in Western than Eastern nations (Haus-mann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2009). Thus, there is reason to believe thatrole incongruity for women leaders is greater in Eastern thanWestern nations.
In summary, consistent with role congruity theory, we predictedthat this meta-analysis would show a robust tendency for leaderroles to be perceived as masculine. However, based on this theoryand the other evidence outlined above, we expected that therelationship between perceptions of leadership and masculinitywould be moderated by several factors. Masculinity of leadershipshould decrease over time. In addition, men should have a moremasculine construal of leadership than women. Also, leadershipmay be more masculine in domains with few women managers andhigher status leader roles. People in different nations may alsodiverge in their construals of leadership, with the presence of fewerwomen in leader roles associated with more masculine stereotypes.These a priori moderators of the gender typing of leadership areexamined within this meta-analysis.
Exploratory Moderators. Several other variables were alsoinvestigated as potential moderators of the masculinity of leader-ship on an exploratory basis. For example, because employmentgenerally entails some experience with women managers, olderparticipants might have a less masculine concept of leadership.However, older peoples more traditional attitudes about gender(e.g., Howell & Day, 2000) might foster a more masculine conceptof leadership. Therefore, we could not predict whether age wouldbe positively or negatively associated with the masculinity ofleadership but address the issue with an exploratory analysis.
Also, in research on gender, authors of one sex have occasion-ally obtained different findings than authors of the other sex (e.g.,Eagly & Carli, 1981; Leaper, Anderson, & Sanders, 1998). Inaddition, originators of research paradigms sometimes obtainedstronger data than other researchers (e.g., B. T. Johnson & Eagly,1989; Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, & Blackstone, 1994).Because originators stronger findings might partially be due totheir choice of stereotype measure in the case of the masculinity ofleadership, we also explored whether the differing measures usedin each paradigm were associated with different effects. Althoughthese variables have influenced other meta-analyses, we had nospecific reason to expect they would also influence the masculinityof leadership, so we tested their effects as exploratory moderators.
Method
Sample of Studies and Criteria for Inclusion andExclusion
Three paradigms of research. The search located studiesthat fit into the three different paradigms, whose defining charac-teristics are the following:
1. In the Schein (1973) think managerthink male paradigm,participants rated a leader category, men (typically men in gen-eral), or women (typically women in general) on various traitsin a between-subjects design (with only two studies having awithin-subjects design). In most of these studies, the ratings werecompleted using the Schein Descriptive Index, which consists of
619MASCULINITY OF LEADER STEREOTYPES
92 traits, including many agentic or communal personality traits(e.g., adventurous, submissive, aggressive, intuitive, ambitious,modest, kind). Studies collected for this meta-analysis reportedinternal consistency coefficients ranging from .71 to .92 for theSchein Descriptive Index. Researchers reported intraclass correla-tions, computed across the traits, for relating the mean ratings ofleaders and men and of leaders and women.2 Studies were ac-cepted even if they reported only a menleader or womenleadercorrelation, but the great majority of studies reported both corre-lations.
2. In the Powell and Butterfield (1979) agencycommunionparadigm, participants rated leaders (or managers) on two multi-item scales, typically the masculine and feminine scales of theBem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974). One scale contains stereo-typically masculine (i.e., agentic) personality traits, such as asser-tive, forceful, dominant, and competitive; the other scale containsstereotypically feminine (i.e., communal) personality traits, suchas affectionate, compassionate, warm, and gentle. Studies col-lected for this meta-analysis reported internal consistency coeffi-cients for the Bem Sex Role Inventory from .74 to .90 for theagency scale and .79 to .90 for the communion scale. Researchersusually reported means and standard deviations on the two scalesbut sometimes presented item-level data that included a represen-tation of agentic and communal traits or classified respondentsleader ratings into the four quadrants of a two-dimensionalagencycommunion space. The researchers other than Powell andButterfield whose studies fit this paradigm usually did not cite theprecedent of the Powell and Butterfield study, but nonethelessreported participants ratings of a leader category on agency andcommunion.
3. In the Shinar (1975) masculinityfemininity paradigm, par-ticipants rated one or more leader categories on a single bipolar7-point scale that ranged from very masculine to very feminine.Researchers reported means and standard deviations of these rat-ings and compared means to the midscale value, which representsthe gender-neutral or androgynous point on the scale. The meta-analysis includes only those occupations from each study that havea clear leadership focus (most commonly managerial roles, such asoffice manager).
The studies selected for all three of these paradigms presentedparticipants with a general leader category, such as managers orexecutives, or with occupations or job titles denoting managerialauthority, such as personnel directors, head librarians, academicadministrators, military officers, or political office holders. For allparadigms, data were excluded if they provided ratings of leaderbehaviors rather than personality traits (e.g., Gutek & Stevens,1979), of specific people in a leadership position (e.g., Petty &Miles, 1976), or of leader groups identified by sex (e.g., success-ful female managers; Dodge, Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995). Studies inthe agencycommunion paradigm were eliminated if the majorityof the items in their two scales did not pertain to agentic orcommunal personality traits or if the two types of items were veryunequally represented (e.g., Buttner & Rosen, 1988).
The abstract of each identified document was evaluated by atleast one of the authors; if the study potentially fit the inclusioncriteria, the full document was obtained. In total, 78 documentswere rejected based on their abstracts and 134 documents wererejected after reading the document. In addition, 11 documents metthe inclusion criteria but did not report the appropriate statistics to
calculate an effect size, and when contacted, the authors could notsupply the needed information (e.g., Couch & Sigler, 2001; Ger-stner & Day, 1994).
Studies from any participant population or nation were includedif they fit the above criteria. When documents included data fromdifferent nations or different participant samples within a nation,they were treated as separate studies if the results were reportedseparately. Some documents included data for more than one typeof leader category (e.g., company president, head librarian). Ifseparate groups of participants rated each category, the leadercategories were treated as separate studies. If the same participantsrated more than one leader category, these effect sizes were aver-aged prior to calculating study-level mean effect sizes but retainedas separate effect sizes for moderator analyses. In two documentsin the think managerthink male paradigm (Dodge et al., 1995;Karau, 2005), separate groups of participants rated different typesof leaders. These ratings were correlated with the same ratings ofwomen and men, provided by two other groups of participants. Inour analyses, we treated these semi-independent leader conditionsas separate studies.
Some data qualified in more than one paradigm. For example,we extracted only the leader condition of think managerthinkmale studies for use in the agencycommunion paradigm if thereport contained item-level data that allowed us to separate agenticand communal items into subscales (i.e., van Engen, 2006). Also,parts of the same study that were published separately sometimesqualified for different paradigms. For example, some authors pre-sented intraclass correlation coefficients in one publication butgrouped the data into agentic and communal scales in another(Fullagar, Sverke, Sverke, Sumer, & Slick, 2003; Sumer, 2006) orpresented the intraclass correlation coefficients in one publicationbut the mean for a specific masculinefeminine bipolar scale inanother (Koch, Luft, & Kruse, 2005; Luft, 2003).
Search for studies. Computer-based information searcheswere conducted in the following databases: ABI/INFORM, Aca-demic Press/Ideal, Business Source Elite, Proquest Digital Disser-tations, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Emer-ald Full Text, PAIS International, Proquest Business Databases,PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Sci-ence, WilsonWeb, and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts.
In these searches, the keywords leader! (-s, -ship), manager!(-s, -ial), educator, executive, candidate, public office, politicaloffice, principal, or occupation were combined with (a) stereotyp!(-e, -es, -ical), traits, characterization, attribute inventory, image,
2 The design of the studies in this paradigm appears similar to that of astudy by Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel(1970), whose participants rated a mature, healthy, socially competentman, woman, or adult person. Broverman et al. found greater similaritybetween an adult person and men than between an adult person andwomen, but this finding has been criticized as artifactual (see Kelley &Blashfield, 2008; Widiger & Settle, 1987, for details). However, thesimilarity of the Broverman et al. study to the think managerthink malestudies is only superficial because Scheins (1973) method offers superioritem selection and statistical analysis. Specifically, (a) the typical thinkmanagerthink male items (in the Schein Descriptive Index) are moder-ately balanced between agentic and communal qualities (see Duehr &Bono, 2006), and (b) the statistical analysis with an intraclass correlation ismore appropriate to the data.
620 KOENIG, EAGLY, MITCHELL, AND RISTIKARI
expectation, and perce! (-ption, -tive) or (b) gender terms, such asman, men, woman, women, male, female, masculinity, femininity, sex,sex role, sex-typing, gender, gender role, and androgy! (-ny, -nous).Additional searches paired the two most common dependent mea-sures (the Schein Descriptive Index and the Bem Sex Role Inven-tory) with manage! or leader!, think managerthink male, orrequisite management characteristics. Web of Science citationsearches were also performed for the seminal articles in eachparadigm (Powell & Butterfield, 1979; Schein, 1973; Shinar,1975). All obtained studies reference sections were also searchedfor relevant studies.
Several foreign psychological and academic databases weresearched with the limited keywords leader! (-s, -ship) or manager!(-s, -ial) paired with (a) stereotyp! (-e, -es, -ical), traits, or simi-larities or (b) gender terms, such as masculinity, femininity, gen-der, and sex (translated, as appropriate). The foreign databaseswere from Finland (University of Joensuu database, Forum ofScience database, Finnish Social Science Achieve, University ofRovaniemi database, University of Tampere database); Germany(Datenbank, PSYNDEX, PSYNDEXalert, PSYTKOM); GreatBritain and Ireland (Index to Theses); Norway (National Library ofNorway, BIBSYS Library); Spain (Psicodoc); and Sweden (Chal-mers University of Technology database, the Center for ResearchLibraries). Documents in languages other than English were trans-lated by appropriately skilled individuals who assisted the twocoders.
To locate unpublished studies, messages asking for relevant datawere sent to the e-mail distribution lists of several organizations:European Association of Social Psychology, European Associa-tion of Work and Organizational Psychology, Interamerican Soci-ety of Psychology, Society for the Psychology of Women, SocialIssues in Management Division of the Academy of Management,Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and Society for thePsychological Study of Social Issues. Data were also sought fromthe originators of each of the paradigms, but they had no additionaldata to offer. Finally, when the authors of this article gave severaltalks on the meta-analysis in progress, they asked the audience tocontribute their own data or to provide leads about relevant sourcesof data. Both unpublished and published studies meeting the in-clusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis.
The initial search extended from the beginning of each paradigmthrough the end of 2002. The search was then updated in June 2007by consulting the databases that had yielded studies in 2002, withthe addition of Google and Google Scholar, and updated oncemore in March 2009 with PsycINFO, Google, and Google Scholar.
Variables Representing Each Study in All Paradigms
The coded variables represent the a priori moderators as well asother variables that we investigated on an exploratory basis. Theincluded studies, their codings, and effect sizes appear in Tables 1, 2,and 3 for the think managerthink male, agencycommunion, andmasculinityfemininity paradigms, respectively.
A priori moderators. Year of publication (or year of datacollection for unpublished data) was recorded as well as thepercentage of male participants. Effect sizes were also calculatedseparately by participant sex when possible. If data were notreported separately for male and female participants, we contactedthe authors and requested this information.
For each paradigm, we recorded the exact description of theleader group and coded its domain: (a) In the think managerthinkmale paradigm, the leader domains were nearly all designated asmanagerial, and those few not so designated were heterogeneous(e.g., leader, educational administrator), so no moderator variablewas tested; (b) in the agencycommunion paradigm, the domainswere managerial (e.g., manager, middle-level manager), political(e.g., mayor, state senator), or educational (e.g., elementary schoolprincipal, school superintendent); and (c) in the masculinityfemininity paradigm, the domains, or economic sectors, of theoccupations were business (e.g., company president, marketingmanager), education (e.g., educational administrator, school prin-cipal), politics (mayor, politician), judicial (e.g., federal judge,Supreme Court justice), arts (orchestra conductor, theatrical direc-tor), or other (boat captain, farm manager, park manager). For allthree paradigms, leader status was coded as high (defined asprestigious political roles such as president or governor or orga-nizational positions higher than middle manager such as upper-level managers or executives) or moderate (e.g., managers,middle-level managers, all other leader occupations).
Participant nationality was coded by the nation where the studywas conducted and classified as Western (United States, GreatBritain, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden,South Africa, Netherlands, Denmark, and Portugal) or Eastern(China, Japan, Hong Kong, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey).Other exploratory classifications (e.g., North American vs. otherWestern vs. Eastern) did not improve prediction of the effect sizes.
To interpret cross-temporal and cross-national comparisons of stud-ies, we imported data on the percentage of female managers, definedas the percentage of managers who are women, based on the likelytime of data collection for the nations in which the studies wereconducted, defined as 2 years prior to studies dates of publication.When available, these data came from the Human DevelopmentReports of the United Nations Development Programme (e.g., 2006)and otherwise from the Yearbooks of Labour Statistics of the Inter-national Labour Organization (e.g., 1985). Aggregate indexes of thestatus of women available from the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme or other sources were not appropriate for this meta-analysis because they are available only for more recent years.
Exploratory moderators. Average participant age was eitherprovided in each research report or estimated from sample char-acteristics. The distributions of the effect sizes across the types ofparticipant populations were as follows: (a) for the think managerthink male paradigm, 55% undergraduate students, 18% managers,8% MBA students, 6% nonmanagerial employees, and 14% otheror mixed; (b) for the agencycommunion paradigm, 62% under-graduate students, 13% nonmanagerial employees, 9% managers,9% MBA students, and 9% other or mixed; and (c) for themasculinityfemininity paradigm, 86% undergraduate studentsand 14% other or mixed.
The percentage of male authors was coded. Research group wascoded as originators of paradigm (Schein, Powell and Butterfield, orShinar) or other. Stereotype measure was coded based on the use ofthe originators versus other measures: (a) In the think managerthinkmale paradigm, Schein Descriptive Index or other (e.g., task vs.person-orientation scales); (b) in the agencycommunion paradigm,Bem Sex Role Inventory or other (e.g., initiating structure vs. con-sideration scales); and (c) in the masculinityfemininity paradigm,always a masculinityfemininity 7-point scale.
621MASCULINITY OF LEADER STEREOTYPES
Tabl
e1
AllI
nclu
ded
Stud
ies
(k!
51)W
ithM
oder
ator
Valu
esand
Effec
tSize
sfor
the
Thin
kM
anag
erT
hink
Mal
ePa
radi
gm
Rep
ort
Sam
plea
Sep.
byse
xb
Pub.
sourc
ec%
mal
eau
thor
sSt
ereo
type
mea
sure
dN
atio
ne%
fem
ale
mgr
.M
age
Lead
erro
lef
Lead
erst
atus
gn
%m
ale
part.
Item
nLe
ader
sim.h
ICCi
Var
ianc
e
Boo
ysen
&N
kom
o(20
06)
1Y
10
1ZA
3032
SMM
139
169
92W
.46
0.01
404
6992
M.70
0.01
Boy
ce&
Her
d(20
03)
1Y
10
1U
S46
20SM
O1
508
8292
W"
.03
0.01
501
8292
M.39
0.01
Bre
nner
etal
.(19
89)
1Y
167
1U
S35
42SM
M1
407
7292
W.15
0.01
395
6992
M.68
0.01
Byl
er(20
00)
1Y
20
1U
S44
44EA
D1
8382
92W
.45
0.01
8578
92M
.23
0.01
Cohe
n-K
aner
(1992
)1
Y2
01
US
3736
SMM
111
939
92W
.26
0.01
119
3992
M.53
0.01
Dio
n&
Schu
ller(
1990
)1
Y1
502
US/
CA36
32SM
M1
5345
51M
.58
0.02
Dio
n&
Schu
ller(
1991
)1
Y1
502
US/
CA37
33SM
M1
4348
22M
.66
0.05
Dod
geet
al.(
1995
)1
Y1
331
US
4031
SMM
148
5992
W.15
0.01
4859
92M
.50
0.25
SUM
248
5992
W.02
0.01
4859
92M
.59
0.01
Due
hr&
Bon
o(20
03)
1Y
20
1U
S42
30SM
M1
7639
92W
.54
0.01
7431
92M
.56
0.01
Due
hr&
Bon
o(20
06)
2Y
10
1U
S42
47SM
M1
178
6092
W.67
0.01
169
5792
M.56
0.01
US
4220
SMM
119
730
92W
.28
0.01
203
3392
M.43
0.01
Fern
ande
s&
Cabr
al-C
ardo
so1
Y1
502
PT32
21M
119
946
42W
".01
0.03
(2003
)19
946
42M
.40
0.03
Fost
er(19
94)
1Y
10
1G
B32
42SM
M1
160
5092
W.11
0.01
160
5092
M.46
0.01
Fulla
gere
tal
.(20
03)
2Y
150
1TR
821
SMM
153
658
92W
.21
0.01
536
5892
M.58
0.01
SE30
21SM
M1
182
2792
W.15
0.01
182
2792
M.68
0.01
Hei
lman
etal
.(19
89)
1M
150
1U
S35
41SM
M1
7810
092
W"
.24
0.01
7810
092
M.54
0.01
Kar
au(20
05)
1Y
210
01
US
4222
SMM
111
259
92W
.01
0.01
104
6392
M.39
0.01
CEO
211
358
92W
.19
0.01
105
6392
M.93
0.01
Kar
au&
Elsa
id(20
05)
2Y
210
01
US
4222
SMM
121
758
92W
.31
0.01
220
5992
M.40
0.01
EG9
21SM
M1
371
7592
W"
.24
0.01
357
7392
M.43
0.01
Kar
au&
Han
sen
(2005
)2
Y2
100
1SE
3121
SMM
147
5592
W.44
0.01
4757
92M
.33
0.01
US
4221
SMM
161
5192
W.28
0.01
6156
92M
.39
0.01
Ken
t(19
84)
1Y
20
1U
S28
47SS
A1
240
4792
W.58
0.01
247
5292
M.59
0.01
622 KOENIG, EAGLY, MITCHELL, AND RISTIKARI
Tabl
e1
(contin
ued)
Rep
ort
Sam
plea
Sep.
byse
xb
Pub.
sourc
ec%
mal
eau
thor
sSt
ereo
type
mea
sure
dN
atio
ne%
fem
ale
mgr
.M
age
Lead
erro
lef
Lead
erst
atus
gn
%m
ale
part.
Item
nLe
ader
sim.h
ICCi
Var
ianc
e
Kun
kele
tal
.(20
03)
1Y
133
1U
S46
21CE
O2
4146
92W
.18
0.01
4246
92M
.80
0.01
Luft
(2003
)1
Y2
02
DE
2728
L1
202
4725
W"
.27
0.04
202
4725
M.68
0.04
Mar
men
out(
2008
)1
Y2
01
SA31
21SM
M1
144
4092
W.18
0.01
171
3792
M.61
0.01
Mas
seng
ill&
DiM
arco
1Y
110
01
US
2244
SM1
8960
92W
.15
0.01
(1979
)83
5792
M.64
0.01
Moo
k(20
05)
1Y
20
1N
L26
39SM
185
4892
W.24
0.01
9645
92M
.58
0.01
Nee
rgaa
rdet
al.(
2007
)1
Y2
331
DK
2543
MSC
111
985
92W
.44
0.01
113
8292
M.72
0.01
Nor
ris&
Wyl
ie(19
95)
1Y
10
2U
S/CA
4021
SMM
161
348
24W
.44
0.05
605
4824
M.81
0.05
Ors
er(19
94)j
2Y
10
1CA
4121
SM1
198
092
W.31
0.01
198
092
M.46
0.01
CA41
21SM
119
850
92W
.18
0.01
198
5092
M.49
0.01
Para
dine
etal
.(19
95)
1Y
266
2U
S40
29SM
M1
204
5540
W.15
0.03
213
5440
M.76
0.03
Rya
net
al.(
inpr
ess)
2Y
225
1A
U37
22M
SC1
3538
92W
.36
0.01
3651
92M
.72
0.01
X27
MSC
191
2292
W.46
0.01
7525
92M
.79
0.01
Saue
rset
al.(
2002
)1
Y1
671
NZ
3821
SMM
121
248
92W
.43
0.01
212
4892
M.71
0.01
Sche
in(19
73)
1M
10
1U
S18
43SM
M1
193
100
92W
.06
0.01
212
100
92M
.62
0.01
Sche
in(19
75)
1F
10
1U
S17
44SM
M1
113
092
W.30
0.01
115
092
M.54
0.01
Sche
in&
Dav
idso
n2
Y1
01
GB
3221
SMM
115
254
92W
.19
0.01
(1993
)k15
254
92M
.52
0.01
GB
3221
SMM
110
148
92W
.17
0.01
101
4892
M.64
0.01
Sche
in&
Mue
ller
2Y
150
1G
B32
21SM
M1
101
4892
W.17
0.01
(1992
)10
148
92M
.64
0.01
DE
1924
SMM
129
763
92W
.05
0.01
297
6392
M.71
0.01
Sche
inet
al.(
1989
)1
Y1
331
US
3521
SMM
115
264
92W
.23
0.01
152
6492
M.64
0.01
Sche
inet
al.(
1996
)2
Y1
501
JP9
21SM
M1
195
6692
W"
.06
0.01
210
6492
M.60
0.01
CN12
21SM
M1
186
5692
W.10
0.01
183
5392
M.91
0.01
Scze
sny
(2003
a)1
Y1
02
DE
2724
L1
7358
40W
.65
0.03
7358
40M
.76
0.03
(tabl
eco
ntin
ues)
623MASCULINITY OF LEADER STEREOTYPES
Lastly, the source of publication was coded as published orunpublished (including dissertations, masters theses, and otherunpublished documents) to provide one estimate of possible pub-lication bias (Sutton, 2009; see the subsection Publication Bias).
Two of the authors, who had successfully completed a course onmeta-analysis, independently coded the studies, with high agree-ment across the variables. The mean kappas for intercoder agree-ment were .90, .90, and .97 for the think managerthink male,agencycommunion, and masculinityfemininity paradigms, re-spectively. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
Computation of Effect Sizes and Data AnalysisEffect sizes were calculated with a hand calculator or DSTAT
software and then entered into Comprehensive Meta-Analysis(Version 2.2.050) and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences(SPSS). Subgroup analyses were conducted using ComprehensiveMeta-Analysis, and meta-regressions were conducted with SPSSmacros provided by D. Wilson (see http://mason.gmu.edu/#dwilsonb/ma.html). For all analyses, p values less than .05 wereconsidered significant and values between .05 and .10 were de-fined as marginal.
Calculation of effect sizes. In the think managerthink maleparadigm, researchers reported intraclass correlation coefficients(ICCs) for the menleaders and womenleaders relationships. Inall cases in which ICCs were not reported, the researchers providedadditional information that allowed us to produce intraclass cor-relations. The ICCs used in the primary data reports were com-puted using a one-way, single-rater, random effects model, whichassesses absolute agreement among measurements (Case 1 inMcGraw & Wong, 1996). However, the more appropriate ICCwould have been the 2-way ICC(A,1), which is also a measure ofabsolute agreement but which takes the fixed column factor (lead-ers vs. women; leaders vs. men) into account. Thus, the ICCprovided by researchers in the primary studies would be biaseddownward somewhat but quite close to the calculations forICC(A,1) (K. O. McGraw, personal communication, January 8,2003). We used the one-way, single-rater, random effects ICCbecause it was available for all data sets, providing a commonmetric for the studies. The menleaders and womenleaders sim-ilarities, or ICCs, were analyzed separately as Fishers Z, using theconversion .5 * log({1 $ [(k " 1) * r]}/(1 " r)), where k is thenumber of observations made on each object of measurement, andgiven an inverse variance within-study weight of 1/{k/[2 * (n "2)(k " 1)]}, where n is the number of items (see formulas inAppendix B of McGraw & Wong, 1996). The Zs were transformedback to ICCs for presentation of the results.3 In the random-effectsmodels, the variances in these study weighting terms consisted ofthe sum of the within-study variance and the between-studiesvariance (see Borenstein et al., 2009, p. 72).
In the agencycommunion paradigm, researchers reported meansand standard deviations separately on the agentic and communalscales, allowing the computation of a d effect size comparing the
3 Because the womenleaders and menleaders correlations are depen-dent in that they share the data for leaders, we did not compare the twoeffects statistically. These types of comparisons would require informationabout the correlation between male and female targets, which is notavailable in the primary studies.Ta
ble
1(co
ntin
ued)
Rep
ort
Sam
plea
Sep.
byse
xb
Pub.
sourc
ec%
mal
eau
thor
sSt
ereo
type
mea
sure
dN
atio
ne%
fem
ale
mgr
.M
age
Lead
erro
lef
Lead
erst
atus
gn
%m
ale
part.
Item
nLe
ader
sim.h
ICCi
Var
ianc
e
Scze
sny
(2003
b)1
Y1
02
DE
2745
L1
6058
40W
.87
0.03
6470
40M
.87
0.03
Sylv
an(19
83)
1Y
20
1U
S27
38SM
160
5392
W.11
0.01
6354
92M
.48
0.01
van
Enge
n(20
06)
1Y
20
1N
L26
22SM
M1
7023
92W
.29
0.01
310
92M
.38
0.01
Yim
&B
ond
(2002
)1
Y1
502
HK
2519
SMM
114
249
32W
.44
0.03
142
4932
M.72
0.03
Note
.In
each
sam
ple,
sepa
rate
grou
psofp
artic
ipan
tsra
ted
ale
ader
cate
gory
,wom
en,
or
men
on
gend
er-s
tere
otyp
ical
trai
ts.Th
eef
fect
sizes
are
the
intra
clas
sco
rrel
atio
nsbe
twee
nth
em
ean
ratin
gsofm
anag
ers
(orle
ader
s)an
d(a)
the
mea
nra
tings
ofm
enor
(b)th
em
ean
ratin
gsofw
om
enac
ross
allt
hetr
aits.
Sep.!
sepa
rate
d;pu
b.!
publ
icat
ion;
mgr
.!m
anag
ers;
part.!
parti
cipa
nts;
sim.!
simila
rity;
ICC!
intra
clas
sco
rrel
atio
nco
effic
ient
.a
The
num
bero
fdiff
eren
tsam
ples
(e.g.,
from
diffe
rent
popu
latio
nsor
countr
ies)
repo
rted
with
inth
ear
ticle
.b
Sepa
rate
dsa
mpl
esby
sex:
N!
no;Y
!ye
s;M!
sam
ple
was
allm
ale;
F!
sam
ple
was
allf
emal
e.c
Publ
icat
ion
sourc
e:1!
publ
ished
;2!
unpu
blish
ed.
d1!
Sche
inD
escr
iptiv
eIn
dex;
2!
oth
er.
eA
U!
Aus
tralia
;CA!
Cana
da;C
N!
Chin
a;D
K!
Den
mar
k;EG!
Egyp
t;D
E!
Ger
man
y;G
B!
Gre
atB
ritai
n;H
K!
Hon
gK
ong;
JP!
Japa
n;N
L!
Net
herla
nds;
NZ!
New
Zeal
and;
PT!
Portu
gal;
SA!
Saud
iAra
bia;
ZA!
Sout
hA
frica
;SE!
Swed
en;T
R!
Turk
ey;
US!
Uni
ted
Stat
es;X!
incl
uded
data
from
sever
alco
untr
ies.
fEA
D!
effe
ctiv
eat
hlet
icdi
rect
ors;
L!
lead
ersh
ip;M
!m
anag
ers;
MSC!
man
ager
sofs
ucc
essf
ulco
mpa
nies
;CEO
!su
cces
sful
CEO
s;SM
!su
cces
sful
man
ager
s;SM
M!
succ
essf
ulm
iddl
eman
ager
s;SM
O!
succ
essf
ulm
ilita
ryoffi
cers
;SSA!
succ
essf
ulsc
hool
adm
inist
rato
rs;S
UM!
succ
essf
ulupp
erle
velm
anag
ers.
g1!
mode
rate
;2!
high
.h
M!
men
le
ader
ssim
ilarit
y;W!
wom
enle
ader
ssim
ilarit
y.iEf
fect
size
(ICC)
com
pute
dusin
ga
one-
way
singl
era
ter
rando
mef
fect
sm
ode
l,re
late
dth
em
ean
ratin
gsof
the
lead
erro
leto
the
ratin
gsof
men
or
wom
en.
Thes
eco
rrel
atio
nsre
pres
ent
the
simila
rity
of
ster
eoty
pes
of
men
or
wom
ento
ster
eoty
pes
of
lead
ers;
high
erco
rrel
atio
nsin
dica
tea
grea
ter
simila
rity.
j The
sam
ple
with
50%
mal
epa
rtici
pant
swas
com
pose
dofb
usin
esss
tude
nts,
and
the
sam
ple
with
0%m
ale
parti
cipa
ntsw
asco
mpo
sed
ofn
onbu
sines
sstu
dent
s.k
The
sam
ple
with
54%
mal
epa
rtici
pant
sw
asfro
mN
orth
Gre
atB
ritai
n,an
dth
esa
mpl
ew
ith48
%m
ale
parti
cipa
nts
was
from
Sout
hG
reat
Brit
ain.
624 KOENIG, EAGLY, MITCHELL, AND RISTIKARI
Tabl
e2
AllI
nclu
ded
Stud
ies
(k!
48)W
ithM
oder
ator
Valu
esand
Effec
tSize
sfor
the
Agen
cyC
omm
unio
nPa
radi
gm
Rep
ort/l
eade
rrole
Sam
plea
Sep.
byse
xb
Pub.
sourc
ec%
mal
eau
thor
sSt
ereo
type
mea
sure
dN
atio
ne%
fem
ale
mgr
.M
age
Lead
erdo
mai
nfLe
ader
stat
usg
n%
mal
epa
rt.gh
Var
ianc
e
But
terfi
eld
&Po
wel
l(19
81)
1N
110
01
US
25G
ood
pres
iden
t20
22
128
592.
360.
03Ca
nn&
Sieg
fried
(1987
)1
Y1
100
2U
S33
Man
ager
213
111
053
0.79
0.02
Hud
dy&
Terk
ildse
n(19
93)
1Y
10
2U
S37
21G
ood
Cong
ress
mem
ber
22
133
540.
480.
02G
ood
loca
lcounci
lmem
ber
21
149
500.
200.
01G
ood
may
or2
215
351
0.75
0.01
Goo
dpr
esid
ent
22
139
561.
000.
02A
vera
geofr
ole
s0.
610.
02In
derli
ed&
Pow
ell(
1979
)4
Y1
501
US
22G
ood
man
ager
433
141
632.
650.
09G
ood
man
ager
373
151
02.
140.
06G
ood
man
ager
283
115
469
1.41
0.02
Goo
dm
anag
er22
31
259
581.
220.
01M
aier
(1993
)1
Y1
100
1U
S37
20Ty
pica
lman
ager
31
6050
0.72
0.04
Ave
rage
ofr
ole
s3
159
501.
790.
05Id
ealm
anag
er1.
250.
04M
aron
giu
&Ek
eham
mar
(2000
)1
Y1
501
SE27
Man
ager
413
187
480.
650.
02Po
wel
l(19
92)
2Y
110
01
US
3721
Goo
dm
anag
er3
187
471.
460.
03Ty
pica
lAm
eric
anm
anag
er3
179
441.
630.
03Po
wel
l&B
utte
rfiel
d(19
79)
2Y
110
01
US
22G
ood
man
ager
203
111
082
2.35
0.20
Goo
dm
anag
er27
31
574
701.
980.
05Po
wel
l&B
utte
rfiel
d(19
84)
1N
110
01
US
28G
ood
man
ager
203
162
762
2.47
0.01
Pow
ell&
But
terfi
eld
(1987
)2
Y1
100
1U
S33
20G
ood
pres
iden
toft
heU
.S.
22
5046
1.53
0.05
Goo
dvic
e-pr
esid
ent
22
4446
0.81
0.05
Pow
ell&
But
terfi
eld
(1989
)2
Y1
100
1U
S35
Goo
dm
anag
er20
31
199
432.
560.
15G
ood
man
ager
273
112
660
1.97
0.23
Pow
elle
tal
.(20
02)
2Y
167
1U
S45
Goo
dm
anag
er32
31
123
651.
490.
13G
ood
man
ager
213
120
657
1.08
0.04
Pow
ell&
Kid
o(19
94)
2Y
110
1JP
8G
ood
man
ager
213
188
77"
1.18
0.03
Typi
calJ
apan
ese
man
ager
213
186
230.
270.
02R
osen
was
ser
&D
ean
(1989
)9
N1
01
US
3521
City
counci
lmem
ber
21
1454
2.44
0.25
Gov
erno
r2
214
542.
660.
27M
ayor
22
1454
2.31
0.24
(tabl
eco
ntin
ues)
625MASCULINITY OF LEADER STEREOTYPES
Tabl
e2
(contin
ued)
Rep
ort/l
eade
rrole
Sam
plea
Sep.
byse
xb
Pub.
sourc
ec%
mal
eau
thor
sSt
ereo
type
mea
sure
dN
atio
ne%
fem
ale
mgr
.M
age
Lead
erdo
mai
nfLe
ader
stat
usg
n%
mal
epa
rt.gh
Var
ianc
e
Pres
iden
t2
214
541.
400.
18Sc
hool
boar
dm
embe
r1
114
541.
010.
16St
ate
repr
esen
tativ
e2
114
542.
400.
25St
ate
senat
or2
114
541.
590.
19U
.S.r
epre
sent
ativ
e2
214
542.
550.
26U
.S.s
enat
or2
214
541.
980.
21R
uste
mey
er&
Thrie
n(19
89)
2Y
10
1D
E19
Goo
dm
anag
er23
31
109
643.
110.
25G
ood
man
ager
453
154
100
1.84
0.23
Stok
er(20
07)
1Y
10
1N
L26
Idea
lman
ager
363
132
2967
1.07
0.00
1Su
mer
(2006
)1
Y1
02
TR8
Succ
essf
ulm
iddl
em
anag
er21
31
369
551.
290.
01van
Enge
n(20
06)
1Y
20
2N
L26
Succ
essf
ulm
iddl
em
anag
er22
31
4028
1.00
0.06
Vin
nico
mbe
&Ca
mes
(1998
)1
Y1
02
LU9
Succ
essf
ulm
anag
erat
thei
rba
nk43
31
6650
1.02
0.03
Vin
nico
mbe
&Si
ngh
(2002
)1
Y1
02
GB
33Su
cces
sful
man
ager
sw
hore
ache
dth
eto
pte
am43
32
363
331.
710.
01
Will
emse
n(20
02)
1Y
10
2N
L27
Succ
essf
ulm
anag
erat
thei
rba
nk22
31
139
521.
190.
02
Will
iam
s(19
89)
1N
20
1U
S35
50A
cade
mic
dean
ofs
tude
nts
11
5443
1.00
0.04
Ass
istan
tprin
cipa
l1
154
430.
760.
04El
emen
tary
scho
olpr
inci
pal
11
5443
0.28
0.04
Scho
olsu
perin
tend
ent
12
5443
0.34
0.04
Seco
ndar
ysc
hool
prin
cipa
l1
154
431.
200.
04A
vera
geofr
ole
s0.
710.
04
Note
.In
each
sam
ple,
parti
cipa
nts
rate
da
lead
erro
leon
sepa
rate
mas
culin
e(i.
e.,ag
entic
)and
fem
inin
e(i.
e.,co
mm
unal
)gen
ders
tere
otyp
ing
scal
es.C
om
paris
onofp
artic
ipan
tsm
ean
ratin
gson
the
two
scal
esde
term
ined
whe
ther
the
ster
eoty
peofl
eade
rsw
asm
ore
mas
culin
eth
anfe
min
ine.
The
effe
ctsiz
efo
rthe
aver
age
oft
hero
les
ispr
esen
ted
fors
tudi
esusin
ga
with
in-s
ubjec
tsde
sign.
Sep.!
sepa
rate
d;pu
b.!
publ
icat
ion;
mgr
.!m
anag
ers;
part.!
parti
cipa
nts.
aTh
enum
ber
of
diffe
rent
sam
ples
(e.g.,
from
diffe
rent
popu
latio
nsor
countr
ies)
repo
rted
with
inth
ear
ticle
.So
me
stud
ies
with
multi
ple
sam
ples
repo
rted
parti
cipa
ntch
arac
teris
tics
acro
ssal
lsa
mpl
es.
bSe
para
ted
sam
ples
byse
x:
N!
no;Y!
yes.
cPu
blic
atio
nso
urc
e:1!
publ
ished
;2!
unpu
blish
ed.
d1!
Bem
Sex
Rol
eInv
ento
ry;2!
oth
er.
eD
E!
Ger
man
y;G
B!
Gre
atB
ritai
n;JP!
Japa
n;LU
!Lu
xem
bour
g;N
L!
Net
herla
nds;
SE!
Swed
en;T
R!
Turk
ey;U
S!
Uni
ted
Stat
es.
f1!
educ
atio
nal;
2!
polit
ical
;3!
man
ager
ial.
g1!
mode
rate
;2!
high
.h
Effe
ctsiz
e(g)
com
pute
dby
subt
ract
ing
the
mea
nra
ting
on
the
fem
inin
esc
ale
from
the
mea
nra
ting
on
the
mas
culin
esc
ale
and
divi
ding
byth
epo
oled
stan
dard
devi
atio
n,
adjus
tedfo
rsm
alls
ampl
ebi
as.I
fonly
frequ
enci
esor
perc
enta
gesi
na
2%
2ta
blec
reat
edby
split
ting
the
scal
esat
the
med
ians
wer
ere
porte
d,ag
ency
and
com
munio
nw
ere
trea
ted
asdi
chot
omou
s,an
dg
was
estim
ated
from
d Cox
.La
rger
gsin
dica
tea
more
mas
culin
eco
nce
ptofl
eade
rshi
p.
626 KOENIG, EAGLY, MITCHELL, AND RISTIKARI
Tabl
e3
AllI
nclu
ded
Stud
ies
(k!
101)
With
Mod
erat
orVa
lues
and
Effec
tSize
sfor
the
Mas
culin
ityF
emin
inity
Para
digm
Rep
ort/l
eade
rrole
Sam
plea
Sep.
byse
xb
%m
ale
auth
ors
Nat
ionc
%fe
mal
em
gr.
Mag
eLe
ader
dom
aind
Lead
erst
atus
en
%m
ale
part.
gfV
aria
nce
Beg
gs&
Doo
little
(1993
)1
Y0
US
3721
Boa
tcap
tain
61
139
502.
440.
007
Com
pany
pres
iden
t2
213
849
1.22
0.00
7D
ean/
educ
atio
nala
dmin
istra
tor
11
140
500.
610.
007
Dire
ctor
,lab
orre
latio
ns2
114
150
0.88
0.00
7D
irect
or,o
pera
tions
21
141
501.
110.
007
Farm
man
ager
61
140
501.
640.
007
Fede
ralju
dge
51
141
501.
460.
007
Hea
dlib
raria
n1
114
150
"1.
660.
007
Man
ager
,cre
ditu
nio
n2
114
150
0.87
0.00
7M
anag
er,p
rocu
rem
ents
ervic
es2
114
150
0.72
0.00
7M
anag
ing
edito
r6
113
950
0.85
0.00
7M
ayor
41
141
501.
400.
007
Mot
elm
anag
er2
114
150
0.45
0.00
7O
ffice
man
ager
21
141
500.
260.
007
Orc
hestr
aco
ndu
ctor
31
140
501.
350.
007
Park
man
ager
61
141
501.
100.
007
Pers
onne
ldire
ctor
21
139
500.
300.
007
Polit
icia
n4
114
051
1.40
0.00
7Pu
blic
rela
tions
dire
ctor
21
141
500.
060.
007
Sale
sm
anag
er2
114
050
0.60
0.00
7Sa
les
pres
iden
t2
214
050
1.35
0.00
7Sc
hool
prin
cipa
l1
114
150
0.92
0.00
7Th
eatri
cald
irect
or3
114
150
0.01
0.00
7U
nive
rsity
pres
iden
t1
214
050
1.44
0.00
7U
.S.S
upre
me
Cour
tjusti
ce5
113
950
1.51
0.00
7A
vera
geofr
ole
s0.
890.
007
Gat
ton
etal
.(19
99)
1Y
33U
S44
21A
ccou
ntin
gm
anag
er2
117
547
0.84
0.00
6Co
mpu
tero
pera
tions
man
ager
21
175
470.
670.
006
Dat
apr
oces
sing
man
ager
21
175
47"
0.16
0.00
6En
gine
erin
gm
anag
er2
117
547
1.46
0.00
6Fi
nanc
ialm
anag
er2
117
547
0.76
0.00
6H
uman
reso
urc
esm
anag
er2
117
547
"0.
310.
006
Mar
ketin
gm
anag
er2
117
547
0.20
0.00
6O
ffice
man
ager
21
175
470.
270.
006
Plan
tman
ager
21
175
471.
770.
006
Quali
tyco
ntr
olm
anag
er2
117
547
0.84
0.00
6R
&D
dire
ctor
21
175
470.
450.
006
Sale
sm
anag
er2
117
547
0.38
0.00
6A
vera
geofr
ole
s0.
600.
006
Koc
het
al.(
2005
)1
Y0
DE
2728
Lead
ersh
ip2
120
247
0.63
0.00
5(ta
ble
contin
ues)
627MASCULINITY OF LEADER STEREOTYPES
Tabl
e3
(contin
ued)
Rep
ort/l
eade
rrole
Sam
plea
Sep.
byse
xb
%m
ale
auth
ors
Nat
ionc
%fe
mal
em
gr.
Mag
eLe
ader
dom
aind
Lead
erst
atus
en
%m
ale
part.
gfV
aria
nce
Mah
oney
&B
lake
(1987
)1
Y10
0U
S33
26Fa
rmm
anag
er6
129
521.
520.
036
Fina
ncia
lman
ager
21
3450
0.48
0.03
0Sa
les
man
ager
21
2952
0.58
0.03
5A
vera
geofr
ole
s0.
860.
033
Mun
oz
Sastr
eet
al.(
2000
)2
N20
FR9
21B
oatc
apta
in6
123
445
2.35
0.00
4Co
mpa
nypr
esid
ent
22
234
450.
980.
004
Dea
n/ed
ucat
iona
ladm
inist
rato
r1
123
445
0.92
0.00
4Fa
rmm
anag
er6
123
445
1.97
0.00
4Fe
dera
ljudg
e5
123
445
0.53
0.00
4H
ead
libra
rian
11
234
45"
1.03
0.00
4M
anag
ing
edito
r2
123
445
0.52
0.00
4M
ayor
41
234
450.
780.
004
Mot
elm
anag
er2
123
445
0.80
0.00
4O
rche
stra
condu
ctor
31
234
451.
220.
004
Park
man
ager
61
234
450.
930.
004
Pers
onne
ldire
ctor
21
234
450.
490.
004
Polit
icia
n4
123
445
1.15
0.00
4Pu
blic
rela
tions
dire
ctor
21
234
450.
280.
004
Sale
sm
anag
er2
123
445
0.30
0.00
4Sa
les
pres
iden
t2
223
445
0.72
0.00
4Sc
hool
prin
cipa
l1
123
445
0.07
0.00
4Su
prem
eCo
urtju
stice
51
234
450.
600.
004
Thea
trica
ldire
ctor
31
234
450.
530.
004
Uni
vers
itypr
esid
ent
12
234
450.
870.
004
Ave
rage
ofr
ole
s0.
750.
004
ES32
21B
oatc
apta
in6
112
641
2.03
0.00
8Co
mpa
nypr
esid
ent
22
126
410.
750.
008
Dea
n/ed
ucat
iona
ladm
inist
rato
r1
112
641
0.74
0.00
8Fa
rmm
anag
er6
112
641
1.25
0.00
8Fe
dera
ljudg
e5
112
641
0.59
0.00
8H
ead
libra
rian
11
126
41"
0.09
0.00
8M
anag
ing
edito
r2
112
641
0.74
0.00
8M
ayor
41
126
410.
610.
008
Mot
elm
anag
er2
112
641
0.68
0.00
8O
rche
stra
condu
ctor
31
126
411.
300.
008
Park
man
ager
61
126
410.
780.
008
Pers
onne
ldire
ctor
21
126
410.
700.
008
Polit
icia
n4
112
641
0.62
0.00
8Pu
blic
rela
tions
dire
ctor
21
126
410.
070.
008
Sale
sm
anag
er2
112
641
0.51
0.00
8Sa
les
pres
iden
t2
212
641
0.45
0.00
8Sc
hool
prin
cipa
l1
112
641
0.40
0.00
8Su
prem
eCo
urtju
stice
51
126
410.
880.
008
628 KOENIG, EAGLY, MITCHELL, AND RISTIKARI
Tabl
e3
(contin
ued)
Rep
ort/l
eade
rrole
Sam
plea
Sep.
byse
xb
%m
ale
auth
ors
Nat
ionc
%fe
mal
em
gr.
Mag
eLe
ader
dom
aind
Lead
erst
atus
en
%m
ale
part.
gfV
aria
nce
Thea
trica
ldire
ctor
31
126
410.
320.
008
Uni
vers
itypr
esid
ent
12
126
410.
570.
008
Ave
rage
ofr
ole
s0.
700.
008
Shin
ar(19
75)
1N
0U
S18
21B
oatc
apta
in6
112
050
3.91
0.00
9Co
mpa
nypr
esid
ent
22
120
509.
060.
011
Dea
n/ed
ucat
iona
ladm
inist
rato
r1
112
050
0.99
0.00
8Fa
rmm
anag
er6
112
050
2.09
0.00
8Fe
dera
ljudg
e5
112
050
1.76
0.00
8H
ead
libra
rian
11
120
50"
1.59
0.00
8M
anag
ing
edito
r2
112
050
0.68
0.00
8M
ayor
41
120
501.
730.
008
Mot
elm
anag
er2
112
050
1.08
0.00
8O
rche
stra
condu
ctor
31
120
502.
730.
009
Park
man
ager
61
120
503.
030.
009
Pers
onne
ldire
ctor
21
120
500.
500.
008
Polit
icia
n4
112
050
0.96
0.00
8Pu
blic
rela
tions
dire
ctor
21
120
500.
680.
008
Sale
sm
anag
er2
112
050
1.13
0.00
8Sa
les
pres
iden
t2
212
050
1.62
0.00
8Sc
hool
prin
cipa
l1
112
050
0.67
0.00
8Th
eatri
cald
irect
or3
112
050
1.09
0.00
8U
nive
rsity
pres
iden
t1
212
050
3.94
0.00
9U
.S.S
upre
me
Cour
tjusti
ce5
112
050
7.08
0.01
0A
vera
geofr
ole
s2.
160.
009
Note
.In
each
sam
ple,
parti
cipa
nts
rate
dle
ader
role
son
asin
gle
bipo
larm
ascu
linity
fem
inin
itysc
ale.
Com
paris
onoft
hese
ratin
gsto
the
mid
poin
toft
hesc
ale
dete
rmin
edw
heth
erth
est
ereo
type
of
lead
ers
was
mas
culin
eor
fem
inin
e.Th
eef
fect
size
fort
heav
erag
eoft
hero
les
ispr
esen
ted
fors
tudi
esusin
ga
with
in-s
ubjec
tsde
sign.
All
stud
ies
wer
epu
blish
edan
duse
da
17
mas
culin
efe
min
ine
ratin
gsc
ale.
Sep.!
sepa
rate
d;m
gr.!
man
ager
s;pa
rt.!
parti
cipa
nts.
aTh
enum
bero
fdiff
eren
tsam
ples
(e.g.,
from
diffe
rent
popu
latio
nsor
countr
ies)
repo
rted
with
inth
ear
ticle
.b
Sepa
rate
dsa
mpl
esby
sex:
N!
no;Y!
yes.
cFR!
Fran
ce;D
E!
Ger
man
y;ES!
Spai
n;U
S!
Uni
ted
Stat
es.
d1!
educ
atio
n;2!
busin
ess;
3!
arts
;4!
polit
ical
;5!
judici
al;6!
oth
er.
e1!
mode
rate
;2!
high
.fEf
fect
size
(g)co
mpu
ted
bysu
btra
ctin
gth
em
idpo
into
fth
esc
ale
from
the
lead
erra
ting,
divi
ded
byth
est
anda
rdde
viat
ion
and
corr
ecte
dfo
rsm
alls
ampl
ebi
as.
629MASCULINITY OF LEADER STEREOTYPES
ratings on the two scales: (M1 " M2)/sp. The effect sizes wereconverted to g with the correction for small sample bias: 1" [3/(4N" 9)] (Borenstein et al., 2009). Some authors split their sample atthe median on both scales and reported the frequencies or percentagesin each quadrant of the resulting 2 % 2 table. If only this report wasavailable, agency and communion were treated as dichotomous, andg was estimated from dCox, which is a logistic transformation of theodds-ratio (Sanchez-Meca, Marn-Martnez, & Chancon-Moscoso,2003, Formula 18). The within-study weighting term was the con-ventional inverse variance for standardized comparisons of means(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 72) or dCox (Sanchez-Meca et al., 2003,Formula 19), with the random-effects models also incorporating thebetween-studies variances in the study weight.
In the masculinityfemininity paradigm, authors reported meansand standard deviations on a 7-point masculinityfemininity scale,which yielded a d as a comparison with the scales midpoint [(M"midpoint)/SD]. The effect sizes were then corrected for smallsample bias with the formula 1 " [3/(4N " 5)] to create a g(Borenstein et al., 2009). The within-study weighting term forthese effect sizes was (1/n) $ {(d * d)/[2n(n " 1)]} (B. Becker,personal communication, June 19, 2008), and the random-effectsmodels included the between-studies variance in the study weight.
Mean and distribution of effect sizes. Within each para-digm, the presentation first considers the mean weighted effect size(with within-subjects effect sizes combined prior to averaging),calculated by a random-effects model because the studies effectsizes were not assumed to be consistent with a single underlyingmean value. We tested for outliers, as defined by more than 1.5times the interquartile range beyond the upper quartile (i.e., theupper inner fence, Tukey, 1977). We used Cohens (1988) bench-marks for d and r to describe the magnitude of the effect sizes gand ICC, under which a g of .20 or an ICC of .10 is consideredsmall, a g of .50 or an ICC of .30 is considered medium, and a gof .80 or an ICC of .50 is considered large. Along with the overallmean, we present several distributional statistics recommended byBorenstein et al. (2009): (a) T (or tau, the estimated standarddeviation of the true effect sizes); (b) 95% confidence interval (CI;a measure of the accuracy of the mean; 95% of mean effect sizeswould fall inside this interval); (c) 90% prediction interval (PI; ameasure of the dispersion of effect sizes; 90% of true effects innew studies with a sample selected at random would fall inside thisinterval); (d) Q (a measure of uncertainty, or whether heterogene-ity is genuine); and (e) I2 (a measure of the magnitude of hetero-geneity, defined as the proportion of the observed dispersion thatis real rather than spurious on a 1 to 100% scale). An I2 near zeroindicates that almost all of the observed variance in the effects isspurious and that there is no variance to explain, whereas a largeI2 indicates that investigation of the reasons for this variance iswarranted.
Publication bias. Analyses of the distribution of effect sizeschecked for potential biases in publication or our retrieval ofstudies (see Borenstein et al., 2009). We first examined the funnelplot of the effect sizes plotted by the standard error and assessedwhether Eggers test of the plots asymmetry was significant. Wenext implemented the trim-and-fill procedure, which estimates thenumber of studies that should be removed to create a more sym-metric