Stereotype vulnerability or stereotype reactance: The moderating role of leadership efficacy in women leaders' responses to stereotype activation

The present research examined the influence of negative leadership stereotypes on women leaders. There were four goals: (1) to examine leadership efficacy as a moderator of responses to stereotype activation, (2) to explore the role of perceived performance as a mediating factor in the domain identification and well-being responses to stereotype activation, (3) to test the causal role of leadership efficacy in moderating responses to stereotype activation, and (4) to examine the role of threat and challenge in reactions to stereotype activation. These goals were addressed in four experimental studies that each employed a paradigm designed to test the hypotheses in a controlled, small group, leadership situation. Specifically, female participants took part in a group task as the ‘randomly assigned’ leader of a three-person group; the task took place within an immersive virtual environment and the participants were actually alone during the experiment. Half of the participants were primed with the stereotype before taking the leadership role in an employee hiring decision task.; The effects of stereotype activation on women leaders were moderated by the leaders' efficacy for leadership. Low efficacy leaders showed detrimental responses to the activation of stereotypes: decreased leadership skills appraisals, decreased perceptions of how well they performed, decreased identification with the domain of leadership, and decreased psychological well-being. However, high efficacy leaders exhibited more positive responses: increased leadership skills appraisals, increased perceived performance, increased domain identification, and increased well-being. Additionally, perceived performance successfully mediated the domain identification and well-being effects of stereotype activation on high and low efficacy leaders. Unfortunately, the leadership efficacy manipulation was ineffective, thus, the causal role of leadership efficacy could not be determined. Finally, contrary to predictions, physiological responses indicated that high efficacy leaders were threatened and low efficacy leaders were challenged in the leadership role.