All-male, all-female, and mixed groups were observed for possible differences in interactional style. The groups met for 5 11/2-hr unstructured meetings. Portions of the tape-recorded sessions were analyzed by the General Inquirer computer-aided content analysis system. Leadership, defined as rank order of Ss initiating interaction, showed greater variation along sessions in the female than in the male group, whereas in the mixed group the males initiated and received more interaction than the females. Exercise of power, defined as amount of talking to the group as a whole rather than to individuals, occurred more often in the male groups than in the female. In the mixed groups, the female pattern did not change, but the males addressed the group as a whole less often in mixed groups. A 3rd difference was found on the variable of intimacy and openness. Female group members revealed more information about themselves and their feelings than the male group members. In the mixed group, males shared more about themselves than in the all-male group. Sex role pressures are considered to be a contributing factor to the results. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
"For instance, men tend to be more assertive, risk taking, and selfconfident than women (Mezulis et al. 2004). Additionally, prior research has found that in mixed gender groups, men are more likely to take initiative and to emerge as leader (Aries 1976). Please note that the aim of the present study was not to test social structural and evolutionary perspectives in comparison. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Although the proportion of women in leadership positions has grown over the past decades, women are still underrepresented in leadership roles, which poses an ethical challenge to society at large but business in particular. Accordingly, a growing body of research has attempted to unravel the reasons for this inequality. Besides theoretical progress, a central goal of these studies is to inform measures targeted at increasing the share of women in leadership positions. Striving to contribute to these efforts and drawing on several theoretical approaches, the present study provides a contemporary examination of (a) whether women and men differ in their levels of power motivation and (b) whether potential gender differences in this motivation contribute to the unequal distribution of women and men in leadership positions. Results from four studies provide converging support for these assumptions. Specifically, we found that women consistently reported lower power motivation than men. This in turn mediated the link between gender and leadership role occupancy. These results were robust to several methodological variations including samples from different populations (i.e., student samples and large heterogeneous samples of employee), diverse operationalizations of power motivation and leadership role occupancy (self- and other ratings), and study design (cross-sectional and time-lagged designs). Implications for theory and practice, including ways to contribute to a more equal gender distribution in leadership positions, are discussed.
Journal of Business Ethics 03/2014; 120(3). DOI:10.1007/s10551-013-1663-9 · 1.33 Impact Factor
"A potential limitation of the current study is that the effects of same sex and opposite sex interactions could not be examined. Nevertheless, a female confederate was chosen as opposed to a male confederate given research suggesting that women report greater self-disclosure (Cozby, 1973), friendliness, empathy, altruism (Gibbs et al., 1980), and interpersonal affection (Aries, 1976) within same-sex friendships compared to males. The current study provides support for the use of a social affiliation interaction task for investigating "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Social anhedonia is a promising indicator for the vulnerability towards developing schizophrenia-spectrum disorders and is an important determinant of the social impairment associated with these disorders. It is unknown if social anhedonia is associated with true deficits in experiential reactions or if lower social functioning in social anhedonia reflects behavioral deficits in social skill or initiation of social contact. Using a novel social interaction task, the current study compared controls (n=60) to individuals elevated on social anhedonia (n=49) on observer-rated social skill and facial affect and participant self-reports of their experiential reactions to an affiliative interaction. Compared to the control group, the social anhedonia group was rated as behaviorally less affiliative and less socially skilled during the affiliative interaction. In response to the social interaction, the social anhedonia group reported less change in positive affect, less willingness to engage in future social interactions with the interaction partner, and less positive reactions toward the interaction partner compared to controls. There were no group differences in facial displays of emotion. Using a standardized affiliative stimulus, it was demonstrated that individuals high in social anhedonia have alterations in both their social skill and in their self-reported experiential reactions during a social interaction.
Psychiatry Research 08/2012; 200(2-3). DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2012.07.050 · 2.47 Impact Factor
"only because of a gender difference in perceived expertise in and confidence in speaking about politics, but because gendered norms of interaction vary with gender composition and facilitate or hinder women's participation. In settings with many men, the interaction tends to take on more stereotypically masculine characteristics of individual assertion, agency, competition and dominance; in settings with many women, people tend to interact in a more stereotypically feminine style that emphasizes cooperation, intimacy and the inclusion of all participants (Aries 1976; Dindia and Allen 1992; Ellis 1982; McCarrick, Manderscheid and Silbergeld 1981; Miller 1985; Smith-Lovin and Brody 1989; see Mendelberg and Karpowitz 2007). Women may experience a greater sense of confidence in predominantly female settings with their more stereotypically feminine norms of interaction, and more discomfort in settings with predominantly male norms. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Can men and women have equal levels of voice and authority in deliberation or does deliberation exacerbate gender inequality? Does increasing women's descriptive representation in deliberation increase their voice and authority? We answer these questions and move beyond the debate by hypothesizing that the group's gender composition interacts with its decision rule to exacerbate or erase the inequalities. We test this hypothesis and various alternatives, using experimental data with many groups and links between individuals’ attitudes and speech. We find a substantial gender gap in voice and authority, but as hypothesized, it disappears under unanimous rule and few women, or under majority rule and many women. Deliberative design can avoid inequality by fitting institutional procedure to the social context of the situation.
American Political Science Review 08/2012; 106(03). DOI:10.1017/S0003055412000329 · 3.93 Impact Factor