Cited by 107Gender Diversity and InequalitySocial and Intergroup PsychologyMedia, Gender, and Advertising

A Company I Can Trust? Organizational Lay Theories Moderate Stereotype Threat for Women

Emerson, Katherine T. U., Murphy, Mary C.·2015·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Abstract

Women remain under-represented in the leadership of corporate America. According to stereotype threat theory, this under-representation may persist because women are concerned about being stereotyped in business settings. Three studies investigated whether an entity (fixed), compared with an incremental (malleable), organizational lay theory is threatening for women evaluating a consulting company. Men and women viewed a company mission statement or website containing an entity or incremental theory. Results revealed that women—more so than men—trusted the entity company less than the incremental company. Furthermore, only women’s mistrust of the entity company was driven by their expectations about being stereotyped by its management. Notably, when combined with high or low representations of female employees, only organizational lay theories predicted trust. Finally, people’s—particularly women’s—mistrust of the entity company led them to disengage more before interacting with a representative. Implications for women’s experiences and outcomes in workplace settings are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167214564969

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?

  • Women demonstrated greater trust in and less disengagement from a consulting company when it espoused a growth rather than a fixed mindset.

    “Specifically, women demonstrated greater trust in and less disengagement from a consulting company when it espoused a growth, rather than a fixed, mindset (Emerson & Murphy, 2015).”

    From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Emerson & Murphy, 2015

  • Organizations that endorse growth beliefs by advocating that everyone can expand their intelligence and abilities can foster identity safety and combat stereotype threat.

    “For example, organizations that endorse growth, as opposed to fixed, beliefs by advocating the belief that everyone can expand their intelligence and abilities can foster identity safety and combat stereotype threat.”

    From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Emerson & Murphy, 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Emerson, K. T. U., & Murphy, M. C.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
2014-12-22
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
295-307
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
OpenAlex
W2015428696
Cited by
107
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
16.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Media, Gender, and Advertising
Keywords
stereotype threat, entity theory, incremental theory, women in leadership, organizational trust, gender stereotypes, disengagement, consulting firms, corporate mission statements
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Sex Factors, Stereotyping, Organizational Culture, Trust

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