Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Dsi/Fragment 110 13 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-10-24 09:49:09 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung, Wotschack Wittek 2006 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 110, Zeilen: 14-22 |
Quelle: Wotschack Wittek 2006 Seite(n): 3, 4, Zeilen: 3: last paragraph; 4: 1 ff. |
|---|---|
| Another theory used in this study to analyze the impacts of the feminization of public relations is role congruity theory, which the researcher believes is the most elaborate attempt to theoretically model and empirically test the effect of gender differences on the effectiveness of compliance gaining strategies (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). Role congruity theory builds on three key propositions.
First, it assumes that the majority of beliefs about the sexes pertain to ‘communal’ and ‘agentic’ attributes:
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781-797. Eagly, A. H.,& Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S., & Makhijani, M. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125-145. |
[page 3]
The most elaborate attempt to theoretically model and empirically test the effect of gender differences on the effectiveness of compliance gaining strategies is role congruity theory (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly, Karau & Makhijani, 1995; Eagly, Makhijani & Klonsky, 1992; Ritter & Yoder, 2004). Role congruity theory builds on three key propositions. [page 4] First, it assumes that the majority of beliefs about the sexes pertain to ‘communal’ and ‘agentic’ attributes: “Communal characteristics, which are ascribed more strongly to women, describe primarily a concern with the welfare of other people – for example, affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, interpersonally sensitive, nurturing, and gentle. In contrast, agentic characteristics, which are ascribed more strongly to men, describe primarily an assertive, controlling, and confident tendency – for example, aggressive, ambitious, dominant, forceful, independent, self-sufficient, self-confident, and prone to act as a leader”. (Eagly & Karau, 2002: 574). Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. In: Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781-797. Eagly, A. H.,& Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. In: Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S., & Makhijani, M. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. In: Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125-145. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M., & Klonsky, B. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A metaanalysis. In: Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22. |
The true source is not given. The quotation is repeated on page 238. Ritter & Yoder 2004 is not found in the reference section of the source. |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:WiseWoman, Zeitstempel: 20211024095045