CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Gender Diversity and InequalitySocial and Intergroup PsychologyCareer Development and Diversity

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Female Leaders: Injurious or Inspiring Role Models for Women?

Hoyt, Crystal L., Simon, Stefanie·2011·Psychology of Women Quarterly
DOI 10.1177/0361684310385216
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The impact of female role models on women’s leadership aspirations and self-perceptions after a leadership task were assessed across two laboratory studies. These studies tested the prediction that upward social comparisons to high-level female leaders will have a relatively detrimental impact on women’s self-perceptions and leadership aspirations compared to male and less elite female leaders. In Study 1 ( N = 60), women were presented with both female and male leaders before serving as leaders of ostensible three-person groups in an immersive virtual environment. This study established the relatively deflating impact of high-level female leaders, compared to high-level male leaders and the control condition, on participants' self-perceptions. Using a similar methodology, Study 2 ( N = 57) further demonstrated that the impact of elite female leaders on participants' self-perceptions in turn adversely affected their leadership aspirations. This study also showed more positive responses to nonelite female leaders with whom participants more strongly identify and who increase counterstereotypic thinking. Taken together, these studies point to a potential dark side of elite female leaders as role models in a domain where individuals are possible targets of a negative stereotype. However, they also point to the relatively more beneficial impact of female role models who disconfirm the negative stereotype.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0361684310385216

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Hoyt C., 2008, Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership and psychology, 1, 165
  3. Lubin B., 1985, Bibliography for the multiple affect adjective checklist

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hoyt, C. L., & Simon, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Richmond (US)
  • Tulane University (US)
Corresponding author
Hoyt, Crystal L.
ORCID
Venue
Psychology of Women Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-03
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
143-157
ISSN
  • 0361-6843 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6402
DOI
10.1177/0361684310385216
OpenAlex
W2138789001
Cited by
140
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
12.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Psychology of Women Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Funders
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
female role models, women in leadership, leadership aspirations, self-perception, upward social comparison, gender stereotypes, leader identification

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