2002
DOI: 10.1300/j125v10n03_03
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tailoring Organizational Characteristics for Empowerment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, Peterson and Hughey (2004) found that gender moderates the relationship between social cohesion and the intrapersonal component of PE. , who were extending Zimmerman and colleagues ' (1992) analysis, found that African Americans scored higher than Caucasians on the interactional component of PE, and Peterson and Hughey (2002) found that socioeconomic status (SES) moderates the relationship between perceptions of organizational characteristics and the intrapersonal component of PE. Finally, although not tested in a multivariate model, Peterson and colleagues' (2006) study displays significant bivariate correlations between subscales of the intrapersonal component of PE and demographic variables including gender, education, and income.…”
mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Similarly, Peterson and Hughey (2004) found that gender moderates the relationship between social cohesion and the intrapersonal component of PE. , who were extending Zimmerman and colleagues ' (1992) analysis, found that African Americans scored higher than Caucasians on the interactional component of PE, and Peterson and Hughey (2002) found that socioeconomic status (SES) moderates the relationship between perceptions of organizational characteristics and the intrapersonal component of PE. Finally, although not tested in a multivariate model, Peterson and colleagues' (2006) study displays significant bivariate correlations between subscales of the intrapersonal component of PE and demographic variables including gender, education, and income.…”
mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…The distinction is that individual notions of empowerment are missing clear links to empowerment at other levels of analysis (i.e., group, community). Psychological empowerment has been theorized with these links clearly in mind (Zimmerman 1990) and has been studied using data collection and analysis at multiple levels (e.g., Peterson and Hughey 2002). Conceptual frameworks for psychological empowerment and empirical studies have identified behavioral, relational, cognitive, and emotional components (Christens 2012;Zimmerman 1995).…”
Section: Empowermentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In empowerment theory, these levels (psychological, organizational, community) are held to be inextricable (Rappaport 1981;Zimmerman 2000), and research has examined the relationships between, for instance, empowerment and sense of community at an organizational level and empowerment at the psychological level (e.g., Peterson and Hughey 2002). This ecological orientation is not universally understood by those invoking ''empowerment'' in research or practice, and many of the uses of the term that have been critiqued as having ''lost their power'' are those that have ignored the ecology of empowerment in favor of an individualistic approach.…”
Section: From Empowerment To Critical Consciousnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Initially, the concept was defined as an internal process, through which weak social groups acquire strength (Solomon, 1985;Staples, 1990). Broader definitions, however, relate to empowerment as a resource that helps people gain control over their lives, and applies to contexts that are not necessarily characterized by weakness (Peterson & Hughey, 2002). As a resource, empowerment has been portrayed as a sense of control over the environment, which is generated when people feel they are performing a task that has social value (Solomon, 1985).…”
Section: The Ontogenic Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%