Gender-role stereotypes and learners notion of self-identity in the capability approach

Marta Zientek, PhD student Jagiellonian University / Cracow University of Economics

Theoretical Background Social identity is one of several themes within personality study that bridge the individual, relational and collective elements of self. It is an idea that is addressed in all major theories of personality either explicitly or implicitly, a fact that indisputably supports the centrality of constructs that connect individual, relational and collective aspects of the human experience. The idea of social identity not only serves to integrate a range of theories and theoretical propositions about the self, but also fits well as a theme for students who are grappling with their identities as they make serious decisions about their prospective occupations or existed roles in a company s workplace. It s obvious that links between social identity theory and aspects of personality exist and that both influence citi!enship. Social identities are defined as cognitive constructs or labels that reflect identification with multiple social niches or roles. These group memberships may include those related to an individual s family, neighborhood, community or social class. These aspects of identity are considered to be broader in scope than roles, as they provide central motivational and self"regulatory functions across time and circumstance, even as roles change significantly or disappear from view. It is also important to note that social identities can be both general and specific in scope #e.g. student vs. engineering student$ dancer vs. classical Indian dancer% and that they may reflect general ideas of group identification as well as highly specific implementations of habits. Social identities may also persist in shaping behaviors and personality, even as roles change &uite radically or disappear. 's a personality construct, social identity is also complicated because it is a noun that sounds like an object or state, but in fact represents ongoing social cognitive processes and social interactions, especially communication. (or example, a social identity is considered to embody a type of self"categori!ation or labelling, but also represents a series of social comparisons and behavioral decisions made in private self"reflective conversation, as networks of self)other attributions, or as observable social enactments. ' good example of such processes may be made of the teenager learning to fit in with a peer group. 'cceptance and participation in the group may involve all the elements of modelling, including among many elements, the imitation of nuanced language, dress, interests, and attitudes toward other individuals or groups. *evelopment of a group membership identity is also likely to include an ongoing self"labelling process in relation to the group #being a member of professionals which I cooperate with% and communication of these identities through self"labelling or self presentation #clothes, badges or other extensions%. Such labelling may ensure that one is notified of group events, and may convince others that one is indeed committed to the group and available for participation in related activities. The identity label may also help to resolve conflicts within the individual regarding allocation of time and finances, as it guides prioritisation of actions in order to ensure status or inclusion. (inally, self"observation and feedback from others within and outside the group may shape

and hone the identity by providing information, validation, and by modelling new or refined aspects of roles. Social identities may be linked and mutually reinforcing and easily connected to broader participation in the community or culture. Similarly, roles and identities that are located in a particular social setting #e.g. family identities of spouse and parent% may be mutually reinforcing and conceptually connected. These roles and identities may work together in establishing a broad array of behavioral patterns that lead to a strong sense of social integrity. This deeper and conscious engagement may provide ongoing motivation even when the environment is less supportive or when aspects of the identity are less salient or are changing #e.g. when one changes jobs or moves to another city%. +roactive personality refers to the extent to which people are willing to take action to influence their environments. ,ore proactive people are relatively unconstrained by situational forces and are willing to affect environmental change. They show initiative, identify opportunities, act on them, and persevere until they meet their objectives. They confront and solve problems, and take individual responsibility to make an impact on the world around them. They anticipate environmental changes and take advantage of opportunities to improve their situation. +roactive behavior involves stepping forward to either improve current situations and circumstances or to create new ones. -owever, human experiences, social roles, and identities do not always align so neatly. In fact, people often discover intense conflicts between common identities, and personal, relational, and collective experiences. Such conflicts have long been the subject of psychological in&uiry because they very often lead to individual and group fragmentation with varied conse&uences, some mundane and some dire to human development issue. Both the process of categori!ation using cultural symbolic categories and finally labeling through stigmati!ation can be a good background to stereotypes which refer to the human tendency to categori!e people into general groups based on attributes such as gender and then to develop beliefs about characteristics and behavior of individual members of these groups. .ender may be a universal dimension for a special labeling " stereotyping people because it is a visually prominent physical feature that enables people to &uickly sort others into two distinct categories""men and women #(iske / Taylor, 0110%. This categori!ation, widely shared beliefs about characteristics attributed to men and women, are commonly held in society and well"documented in the literature. ,en and women are believed to differ on social traits #often labeled 2communal2% as well as achievement"oriented traits #often labeled 2agentic2%. 3omen are commonly believed to have more communal &ualities #expressiveness, connectedness, relatedness, kindness, supportiveness, timidness% whereas men are associated with more agentic &ualities #independence, aggressiveness, autonomy, instrumentality, courage%. These stereotypes tend to be oppositional in nature""the characteristics positively associated with men #e.g. aggressiveness, autonomous% are considered undesirable for women and vice versa #e.g. kind, supportive%. They not only describe how men and women are #descriptive stereotypes% but also how they should be #prescriptive stereotypes%. *escriptive and prescriptive stereotypes are not mutually exclusive. Instead, there is a great deal of overlap between the two, with the behavior that is prescribed directly related to the attributes that positively describe members of the stereotyped group by prescribing appropriate behavior for members of two groups, as well as produce gender"role stereotypes. 4xpectations and beliefs concerning the different &ualities that men and women bring to their work often dictate the type of jobs that are considered appropriate for them, leading to a situation in which the re&uisite characteristics for some jobs are defined in terms

of gender, and those jobs become known as men2s work or women2s work. This gender typing of jobs as predominantly masculine or feminine is common across different social groups in society. (or example, stereotypes related to engineering, surgery, and judiciary are predominantly masculine while those associated with nursing and servicing tend to be largely feminine. In the organi!ational literature, upper management is believed to be a 2manly business while secretarial jobs are seen as a woman2s job. These commonly"held stereotypes build gender stigma, they reflect and promote gender segregation in employment #5ejka / 4agly, 0111%, and usually serve to limit opportunities for women. Stereotype researchers argue that gender stereotypes can have a profound influence on people2s career intentions. 3hen people perceive a lack of fit between their characteristics and the stereotypes associated with a particular task, their intentions to pursue that task are lower than those who perceive a stronger fit. If people believe that there is a lack of fit between themselves and task" related stereotypes, they negatively evaluate their ability to engage in that task and also perceive negative evaluations by others whose support they may need to perform well on the task. These negative evaluations reduce their likelihood of pursing the stereotyped job. 5onsiderable empirical evidence confirms that women aspire to tasks that are associated with their gender, while preferring to stay away from those that are not associated with their gender. The theory of stereotype threat #Steele, 0116, 0117% highlights the important role of negative stereotypes in undermining the aspirations and performance of targets of stereotype. 'ccording to this theory, people from negatively stereotyped groups #e.g. women entrepreneurs% for whom task"related stereotypes are made salient, show a decrement in performance and aspirations on the targeted task. 3hen people are made aware of stereotypes related to their social group and they believe that they may be judged based on these stereotypes, they become vulnerable to the threat of the stereotype #Steele, 6889%. Scholars argue that stereotype threat leads to decrease in performance on the stereotyped task because people psychologically disengage from that task #5rant, 0117%. If stereotype threat can lead to disengagement from stereotyped tasks, it is likely that it may also cause people to disengage from traditionally stereotyped career domains. 4ntrepreneurship and self"employed managers researchers believe that entrepreneurship is stereotypically positively associated with masculine characteristics and negatively with feminine characteristics #'hl, 688:$ (agenson / ,arcus, 0110%. Thus, when women are presented with a masculine stereotype about managers, we expect them to socialy disengage from entrepreneurship, which in turn, should decrease their intentions to become an entrepreneur. It is sociologically maintained that this perceptionof what others believe or of how others treat managerial women, specifically when consideredfrom the viewpoint of managerial women, is similar to the concept of stereotype threat #Steele, 0117%. This concept has been defined as ;the social"psychological threat that arises when one is in a situation for which a negative stereotype about one s group applies< #p. :0=%. Stereotype threat, scholars emphasi!e, is a >situational predicament> experienced only when the negative stereotype applies #Steele, 0117%. In other words, stereotype threat is felt only in situations where one is vulnerable to negative stereotypes about one2s group. 3hen people believe that a negative or unfavorable stereotype about their group applies in the situation, they disengage from the task and confirm the stereotype #Steele, 0119%. If the influence of the stereotype is situational, elimination of the situational factors that generate the threat should help alleviate the threat. 3hen the factors that create the threat in the first place are eliminated, people are able to psychologically relate

to the task again and perform to their actual potential #Steele, 6886%. 3hen the stereotypes are well" known and widely"held #e.g. math, leadership%, stereotype threat tends to be strong and enduring. Ironically, stereotype threat is most keenly felt by those who care most about doing well on the stereotyped task #Steele, 011?%. Individuals who believe in their ability to do well on the stereotyped task or who care about the social conse&uences of being judged incompetent on that task are more likely to disengage themselves from the task, and confirm the stereotype #Steele, 0117%. @esearch on proactive personality informs us that more proactive people tend to have a greater sense of self" determination in their work and career #Seibert, 0111%. They are intrinsically motivated to do well on the task and seek to improve their work outcomes. This leads us to expect that stereotype threat has a stronger impact on those who are more, rather than less, proactive. In other words, stereotype threat is likely to have a significantly detrimental effect on entrepreneurial intentions of women who are more proactive, compared to those who are less proactive. +rior research has found that people who are more proactive have higher entrepreneurial intentions #Spencer"Aatey, -. ,688?%. +roactive people have higher intentions of becoming self"employed and starting their own business rather than working for somebody else compared to less proactive people. 3omen who have a proactive personality are more dispositionally oriented towards taking initiative and affecting change in their circumstances compared to less proactive women. These researchers believe that when more proactive women have higher entrepreneurial intentions, they will also tend to be more affected by stereotype threat. The prediction that stereotype threat will affect proactive women more than other women is supported by research that indicates that women who expect to be seen negatively because of their gender are more likely to forego opportunities to perform better and prove their ability compared to other women #+inel, 0111%. 'dditionally, there is some evidence to suggest that proactive people are more sensitive to the impressions others have of them and are less likely to associate themselves with controversial issues when they believe that it will create an undesirable impression about them # -echt ,. B., 6886%. They tend to be more careful about the social costs of their actions and the potential risks to their social image #5rant, 0111%. Taking managerial learning skills among adults into consideration, when they are self"conscious of being the good students, the ones likely to perform better, who tend to engage in self"handicapping behavior" such as staying out late the night before an important high school test" to protect their image in the eyes of others or to deceive themselves that their performance is not a true reflection of their ability #-echt, ,. B.$ 3arren, C. @.$ Cung, 4.$ Drieger C. B. 6889%. 3e believe it is likely that proactive women may be more sensitive to stereotype threat and be more concerned about maintaining their image. In this study we will examine if proactive personality moderates the relationship between stereotype threat and entrepreneurial intentions. Specifically, we hypothesi!e that more proactive women will be more vulnerable to stereotype threat compared to women who are less proactive. Some managerial scholars suggest that widely"held stereotype associating entrepreneurs with traditionally masculine characteristics may be responsible for low entrepreneurial intentions among women #(agenson / ,arcus, 0110%. These commonly"held stereotypes about managers may lead women to negatively evaluate their ability to become an entrepreneur as well as perceive negative evaluations by others whose support they may need to pursue entrepreneurship, thereby suppressing their intentions to pursue entrepreneurship. Thus, we

believe that women2s intentions to become an entrepreneur may be an important outcome that is affected by stereotype threat.

@esearch data
*ata for this study was collected from employees of an international, outsourcing IT firm who were participating in in"company workshops, managed by me. I asked them for filling and resending early prepared online in"depth interviews and then, after receiving the acceptance of senior management, I decided to continue research by organi!ing in"company focus groups interviews. *ata revealed that this company had a historically male"dominated atmosphere, though promotion of women and minorities of female workers had been emphasi!ed in the previous two decades. The workforce was between 08"09E managerial and approximately 66E female. Before the data collection, I held sixty four in depth interviews and then two focus groups interviewing some managerial men and women as well as non"managerial women, so that the uni&ue experiences of managerial women, as different from male managers or all women employees could be more thoroughly understood. I recruited participants for the interviews and focus groups by sending electronically an introductory letter to approximately 688 randomly selected managerial men and women and non"managerial women. ' randomly selected subset of those who responded to the letter were contacted via telephone to schedule a meeting. 'll interviews were conducted on their workplace and were related to the workplace change #e.g., layoffs, reengineering% at this time. Apinions of respondents and statements about women s leadership potential. F3omen managers are sometimes promoted only because they are women< ;5ompared to male managers, female managers success is more dependent upon having a good mentor.< ;5ompared to male managers, female managers are too .people oriented. and caring to move up in the company.< ;It is not acceptable for women to assume leadership roles as often as men.<

Beliefs regarding the degree to which women possess various traits thought to be useful in managerial positions. Women are not ambitious enough to be successful in the business world. ;An the average, a woman who stays at home all the time with her children is a better mother than a woman who works outside the home at least half time.< ;3omen are less capable of learning mathematical and mechanical skills than are men.<

Apinions about managerial skills among women. !omen are not naturally effective" #hey often ada$t their %ehavior have a tendency to ado$t some male %ehaviors& (woman, age 41-45, middle management) Men have a natural tendency for leadershi$"& # man, age 9:":8, top management% Men trust in themselves" #his creates a more rela'ed and natural leadershi$"& ( man, age 31-35, middle management) Men are much %etter at many of these leadershi$ skills"& #woman, age =9"9=, top management)core position% Men can %e naturally tough and very results oriented ( man, age 3 -4!, middle management) !omen were so o%sessed with trying to out)$erform their male counter$arts that they often neglected the needs of their team"& (man, age 35-44, "rofessional non-managerial "osition) *ometimes + get the im$ression they are $laying tough& although this is not their natural $reference" #his can %e $erceived as artificial and a %it unnerving, es$ecially when they are ,uite caring and soft in $rivate"& (man, age 3 -4!, middle management) My e'$erience with women leaders is that they are turf tenders& %ecause they have had to ado$t that %ehavior to get where they are and do not know how to get out of that mode"& (woman,age 4554, to" management) !omen are caught in a Catch)-- situation regarding leadershi$" +f they are strong they are seen to %e aggressive, and if they work more in a consultative way they are seen to %e weak"""& (woman, age 4 -5!, to" management) .!omen can %e effective leaders as long as they are not im$aired %y wanting to %e nice"& (woman, age 3 -4!, to" management) / lot of women managers still want to %e liked, es$ecially %y their su%ordinates" #hey are not as $rone to managing u$"0 (woman, age 5#, to" management)
!omen are very much focused on %eing liked, %eing good& instead of making harsh and tough decisions"& (man, age 3 -4!, middle management)

Many women lack $ersonal confidence and this 1affects2 their a%ility to effectively ins$ire"""" #hey are often defensive, more so than male colleagues, when challenged constructively"& (man, age 4 5!, to" management) !omen + have worked with tend to %e e'cellent $lanners, good team %uilders" Many, however, have a tendency to do more work than they need to as they are not always comforta%le delegating"& (woman, age 45-54, middle management) #oo many women managers assume that the leaders a%ove them will take care of them"& (woman, age 45-54, to" management) !hen women act in gender)consistent ways, they are $erceived %y others as %eing weak leaders and entre$reneurs"& (woman, age 3!, to" management)

5onclusion.
+roactive personality is an important determinant of individual, organi!ational, and team outcomes, and plays an important role when the environment is challenging or unfavorable, such as the one that most entrepreneurs face. The primary goal of this research was to examine the role of proactive personality in moderating entrepreneurial intention responses to the commonly"held masculine stereotype about entrepreneurs. Self"employed managers are commonly attributed stereotypically masculine characteristics and women may not be perceived to fit the image of an entrepreneur #(agenson / ,arcus, 0110%. Some research supports this prediction that proactive personality would moderate entrepreneurial intention responses including research showing that stereotype threat is most acutely felt by women who are most likely to do well on the stereotyped task #Simon, 688=%. In this study I predicted that more proactive women would be more negatively influenced by the masculine stereotype about entrepreneurs whereas less proactive women will be less vulnerable to the influence of the stereotype. Thus, entrepreneurial intentions of more proactive women were believed to decrease significantly whe exposed to the stereotype, while no such decrement was expected for less proactive women. The above predictions were empirically tested and the results presented here support the prediction that women who are more proactive will be less inclined to become an entrepreneur after exposure to the stereotype. These data, taken together with the research suggesting that negative stereotypes have more detrimental influence on people who are more identified with the stereotyped domain #Steele, 011?%, underscore the powerful impact of stereotype threat on people belonging to marginali!ed groups #e.g. women%. It is notable that less proactive women did not show a significant decrease in their entrepreneurial intentions when exposed to the negative stereotypes. It should also be noted that less proactive women had low entrepreneurial intentions overall compared to more proactive women. Thus, even as this research confirms the earlier finding that proactive personality may be positively related to entrepreneurial intentions, it also highlights the 2double"edged2 nature of proactive personality. The same proactive personality that provides advantage in many individual and organi!ational contexts can become a handicap in stereotype threat situations. There are a number of theoretical and practical implications of this study. In terms of theoretical implications, this research

advances our understanding of gender stereotypes as an important influence on women2s entrepreneurial intentions. Specifically, this research points to the threatening role of gender stereotypes in depressing women2s entrepreneurial intentions. 'dditionally, our findings extend the stereotype threat literature beyond academic performance to entrepreneurial intentions. Though stereotype researchers acknowledge the two"pronged conse&uence of stereotype threat #Steele, 011?%"" undermining both performance and aspirations among stigmati!ed individuals in targeted domains"" there has been an almost complete lack of research on how stereotype threat can influence attitudes and aspirations of stigmati!ed individuals. Summing up, through a number of materials which have been investigated in the stereotype threat literature #Steele, 011?$ +inel, 0111$ Spencer"Aatey, 688?%, this research s aim was to examine the moderating role of proactive personality in the process of social identity change finding out that the impact of stereotype threat on women2s entrepreneurial intentions is related to proactive personality extends the scope of stereotype threat research.

$eferences

'j!en, I. #01?7%. 'ttitudes, traits and actionsG *ispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. In B. Berkowit! #4d.%, 'dvances in experimental social psychology, 68#0%, 'cademic +ress Inc., San *iego Becherer, @. 5., / ,aurer, C. .. #0111%. The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behavior among small company presidents. Cournal of Small Business ,anagement, H7#0% Brewer, ,. B. and .ardner, 3. #011:% 3ho is this ;we<I Bevels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and *ocial Psychology 70#0% 5ejka, ,. '., / 4agly, '. -. #0111%. .ender stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. +ersonality and Social +sychology Bulletin, 69#=% *avies, +. .., Spencer, S. C., / Steele, 5. ,. #6889%. 5learing the airG Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women2s leadership aspirations. Cournal of +ersonality and Social +sychology, ??#6% -all, S #011:%. Juestions of 5ultural Identity G S'.4 +ublications Btd.

-echt, ,. B. #011H% 6886 " ' research odysseyG toward the development of a communication theory of identity. Communication Monogra$hs :8 -echt, ,. B., 3arren, C. @., Cung, 4., and Drieger, C. B. #6889%. ' communication theory of identityG development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. InG 3.B. .udykunst #4d.%, #heori3ing a%out +ntercultural Communication. Sage, Thousand Aaks (agenson, 4. '., / ,arcus, 4. 5. #0110%. +erceptions of the sex"role stereotypic characteristics of entrepreneursG 3omen2s evaluations. 4ntrepreneurship Theory and +ractice, 09#=% (iske, S. T.,/ Taylor, S. 4. #0110%. Social cognition #6nd. ed.%. Kew LorkG ,c.raw"-ill Book 5ompany. Drueger, K. (. #6888%. The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. 4ntrepreneurship Theory and +ractice, 6= #H% ,itchell, @.D., Smith, B., ,orse, 4.'., Seawright, D.3., +eredo, '.,., ,cDen!ie, B. 6886. 're entrepreneurial cognitions universalI 'ssessing entrepreneurial cognitions across cultures. 4ntrepreneurship Theory / +ractice, 6: #6% ,ueller, S. B., / Thomas, '. S. #6888%. ' case for comparative entrepreneurshipG 'ssessing the relevance of culture. Cournal of International Business Studies, H0 +inel, 4. 5. #0111%. Stigma 5onsciousnessG The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Cournal of +ersonality and Social +sychology, 7:#0% Schlenker, B.@. and +ontari, B.'. #6888% The strategic control of informationG impression management and selfpresentation in daily life. InG '. Tesser, @. B. (elson and C. ,. Suls #eds.% Psychological Pers$ectives on *elf and +dentity pp.011M6H6" 3ashington *5G 'merican +sychological 'ssociation. Seibert, S. 4., 5rant, ,. C., / Draimer, ,. B. #0111%. +roactive personality and career success. Cournal of 'pplied +sychology, ?=#H% Simon, B. #688=%. +dentity in Modern *ociety" / *ocial Psychological Pers$ective" AxfordG Blackwell. Spencer"Aatey, -. #6887% Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics H1 Spencer"Aatey, -. #688?% (ace, identity and interactional goals. InG (. Bargiela"5hiappini and ,. -augh. 4ace, Communication and *ocial +nteraction, BondonG 4&uinox +ublishing. Steele, 5. ,. #0117%. ' threat in the airG -ow stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. 'merican +sychologist, 96#:% Steele, 5. #011?%. Stereotyping and its threats are real. 'merican +sychologist, 9H Nhao, -. S., Seibert, S. 4., / -ills, .. 4. #6889%. The mediating role of self"efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Cournal of 'pplied +sychology, 18