Cited by 73Social and Intergroup PsychologyEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessCareer Development and Diversity

Individual differences in implicit theories of leadership ability and self-efficacy: predicting responses to stereotype threat

Burnette, Jeni L., Pollack, Jeffrey M., Hoyt, Crystal L.·2010·Journal of Leadership Studies

Abstract

Extending research on implicit theories to the leadership domain, we examined how individual differences in belief about the malleability of leadership ability influenced responses to stereotype threat. The study consisted of two time periods. At time 1, we assessed individual differences in implicit theories of leadership ability and self‐efficacy for leadership. At time 2, we activated a stereotype threat in a high‐stakes environment. Results revealed that women reported lower self‐evaluation after a stereotype threat when they had low self‐efficacy and believed leadership ability to be fixed (entity theory) rather than malleable (incremental theory). Results are discussed in terms of how implicit theories generate a network of allied cognitions and emotions that subsequently predict stable patterns of behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jls.20138

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • High leadership self-efficacy and a growth mindset of leadership buffer against deleterious stereotype threat effects in a leadership context.

    “Both high levels of leadership self-efficacy and a growth mindset of leadership, that is, the belief that leadership abilities can be cultivated, have been shown to play an important role in buffering against deleterious stereotype threat effects in a leadership context (Burnette, Pollack, & Hoyt, 2010).”

    From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Burnette, Pollack, & Hoyt, 2010

  • Interventions designed to increase women's belief that leadership abilities can be cultivated, or growth mindsets of leadership, are promising for buffering women from stereotype threat effects.

    “Finally, interventions designed to increase women's belief that leadership abilities can be cultivated, or growth mindsets of leadership, are promising for buffering women from stereotype threat effects (Burnette et al., 2010;Ely, Ibarra, & Kolb, 2011;Pollack et al., 2012).”

    From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Burnette et al., 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M., & Hoyt, C. L.
Affiliations
University of Richmond (US)
Corresponding author
  • Burnette, Jeni L.
  • Pollack, Jeffrey M.
  • Hoyt, Crystal L.
Venue
Journal of Leadership Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02-19
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
46-56
ISSN
  • 1935-2611 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-262X
OpenAlex
W2103312967
Cited by
72
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
11.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Leadership Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
implicit theories of intelligence, leadership skills, self-efficacy, stereotype threat, entity theory, incremental theory, individual differences, women in leadership, self-assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review