Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence ("professor") subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence ("soccer hooligans"). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the "professor" category and those primed with the "hooligan" category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to extend the "think manager, think male" research paradigm by examining managerial stereotypes as a function of both gender and sexual orientation, thus comparing the similarity of managerial stereotypes against the stereotypes of male (heterosexual and gay) and female (heterosexual and lesbian) managers. Design/methodology/approach -In total, 163 heterosexual participants used the 92-item Descriptive Index attribute inventory to rate one of five target groups: successful managers, heterosexual male managers, heterosexual female managers, gay male managers, and lesbian female managers. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the degree of correspondence between ratings of the target groups. Findings -The findings showed a higher correspondence between the descriptions of heterosexual male or female managers and the successful manager prototype than between the descriptions of gay male managers and the successful manager prototype. Additionally, results showed that the stereotypes of lesbian female managers were seen as having a moderate level of fit with the successful manager prototype. Practical implications -The results of this study suggest that heterosexuals' beliefs about gay male and lesbian female managers' abilities are important. In particular, heterosexuals' stereotypes that gay males lack the qualities of being a successful manager can limit gay men's access to positions with managerial responsibilities and impede their progress into leadership positions. Originality/value -This study addresses a critical gap in the management literature as it is the first empirical investigation to assess whether the "think manager, think male" phenomenon holds for managers who are members of sexual minority groups.
Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon (2002, Study 1) demonstrated a causal link between subjective commitment to a relationship and how people responded to hypothetical betrayals of that relationship. Participants primed to think about their commitment to their partner (high commitment) reacted to the betrayals with reduced exit and neglect responses relative to those primed to think about their independence from their partner (low commitment). The priming manipulation did not affect constructive voice and loyalty responses. Although other studies have demonstrated a correlation between subjective commitment and responses to betrayal, this study provides the only experimental evidence that inducing changes to subjective commitment can causally affect forgiveness responses. This Registered Replication Report (RRR) meta-analytically combines the results of 16 new direct replications of the original study, all of which followed a standardized, vetted, and preregistered protocol. The results showed little effect of the priming manipulation on the forgiveness outcome measures, but it also did not observe an effect of priming on subjective commitment, so the manipulation did not work as it had in the original study. We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancy between the findings from this RRR and the original study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.