Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]
| Autor | Philip Wotschack / Rafael Wittek |
| Titel | Negotiating Work and Household Demands. Effects of Conflict Management Strategies in Dutch Households on the Labor Supply of Male and Female Employees |
| Ort | Berlin |
| Verlag | Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) |
| Datum | April 2006 |
| Reihe | WZB Discussion Paper, No. SP I 2006-110 |
| URL | https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2006/i06-110.pdf |
Literaturverz. |
no |
| Fußnoten | no |
| Fragmente | 8 |
| [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. |
|
| [2.] Dsi/Fragment 111 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-10-24 10:40:51 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung, Wotschack Wittek 2006 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 111, Zeilen: 1 ff. (entire page) |
Quelle: Wotschack Wittek 2006 Seite(n): 4, Zeilen: 2 ff. |
|---|---|
Second, it argues that in order to be effective in their compliance gaining attempts, the behavior of men and women needs to be consistent with their gender roles. Thus, women using communal strategies are likely to be more successful in gaining compliance than women using agentic strategies, and the use of agentic strategies will be more disadvantageous for women than for men. A key difference between role congruity theory and other gender role theories is that it makes no assumptions about gender differences in the use of specific kinds of compliance gaining behaviors, but only that behaviors that are accepted for a man may not be accepted for a woman. Third, women in leadership positions may find that their gender roles are likely to conflict with their managerial roles. To the degree that the managerial role a woman has to fill is agentic, the more likely she will elicit negative reactions and non-compliance from others because she deviates from her expected gender role. Consequently, “women in managerial positions can avoid negative reactions associated with taking a masculine- oriented role by combining the assertive, confident, and decisive behaviors required in this role with a more communal or feminine style” (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Role congruity theory has been applied successfully to explain gender-related variations in the effectiveness of compliance gaining in organizational and experimental settings. Carli (2001) found that women have greater difficulty exerting influence than [men do, particularly when the influence tactic they use conveys competence and authority – traits that are usually attributed to male interpersonal behavior.] Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–741. Eagly, A. H.,& Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. |
“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).
Second, it argues that in order to be effective in their compliance gaining attempts, the behavior of men and women needs to be consistent with their gender roles. Thus, women using communal strategies are likely to be more successful in gaining compliance than women using agentic strategies, and the use of agentic strategies will be more disadvantageous for women than for men. A key difference between role congruity theory and other gender role theories is that it makes no assumptions about gender differences in the use of specific kinds of compliance gaining behaviors, but only that behaviors that are accepted for a man may not be accepted for a woman. Third, for women in leadership positions, their gender role is likely to conflict with their managerial role: to the degree that the managerial role women have to fill is agentic, the more likely they will elicit negative reactions and non-compliance from others because she deviates from her expected gender role. Consequently, “women in managerial positions can avoid negative reactions associated with taking a masculine-oriented role by combining the assertive, confident, and decisive behaviors required in this role with a more communal or feminine style” (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Role congruity theory has been applied successfully to explain gender related variations in the effectiveness of compliance gaining in organizational and experimental settings. Carli (1999) found that women have greater difficulty exerting influence than men do, particularly when the influence tactic they use conveys competence and authority – traits that are usually attributed to male interpersonal behavior. Eagly, A. H.,& Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. In: Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. |
The true source is not given. Carli 1999 is not found in the reference section of the source. |
|
| [3.] Dsi/Fragment 112 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-10-24 10:22:54 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung, Wotschack Wittek 2006 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 112, Zeilen: 1 ff. (entire page) |
Quelle: Wotschack Wittek 2006 Seite(n): 4, 5, Zeilen: 4: 29 ff.; 5: 1 ff. |
|---|---|
| [Carli (2001) found that women have greater difficulty exerting influence than] men do, particularly when the influence tactic they use conveys competence and authority – traits that are usually attributed to male interpersonal behavior. Consequently, women are less influential when the influence or communication strategy they use is perceived as dominant (Carli, 2001).
An experimental study by Shackelford, Wood, and Worchel (1996) showed that women with a people-oriented style and competence exerted greater influence over men than did women who were merely competent. Atwater, Carey, and Waldman (2001) found that female managers engaging in ‘masculine oriented roles’ (e.g., delivering reprimands) were seen as less effective than male managers by their employees. Brett et al. (2005) showed that women are more effective than men if they use a ‘communal’ style of compliance gaining. The presented evidence supports the assumption that the use of ‘agentic’ strategies is seen as a traditionally masculine role (Brett et al., 2005). As role incongruity is defined as a mismatch between a (communal) female gender role and an (agentic) managerial or leadership role, the researcher suggests that role congruity theory can be extended to the context of public relations practitioners. More specifically, the researcher argues that working women, in this case female public relations practitioners, experience incongruity between their gender role and their role as public relations managers (Hood, 1986). The traditional provider role has predominantly agentic connotations: “The traditional good provider role took on negative connotations such as distant, strict, harsh, authoritarian, bumbling, and incompetent ... putting priority of job over family... Breadwinning was active, responsible, emotionally invested, demanding, expressive, and measured real devotion” (Christiansen & Palkovitz, 2001). Atwater, L., J. Carey & D. Waldman (2001). Gender and discipline in the workplace: Wait until your father gets home. Journal of Management, 27, 537-561. Brett J., L. Atwater, D. Waldman (2005). Effective delivery of workplace discipline – Do Women have to be more participatory than men? Group & Organization Management, 30(5): 487-513 Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–741. Christiansen, S. & Palkovitz, R. (2001). Providing as a form of Paternal Involvement: Why the "Good Provider" Role Still Matters. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 84-106. Hood, J. (1986). The Provider Role – Its Meaning and Measurement. Journal of [sic] Marriage and the Family 48 (2): 349-359. Shackelford, S., Wood, W., & Worchel, S. (1996). Behavioral Styles and the Influence of Women in Mixed-Sex Groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59: 284-293. |
Carli (1999) found that women have greater difficulty exerting influence than men do, particularly when the influence tactic they use conveys competence and authority – traits that are usually attributed to male interpersonal behavior. Consequently, women are less influential when the influence or communication strategy they use is perceived as dominant (Carli, 2001). An experimental study by Shackelford, Wood & Worchel (1996) showed that women with a people-oriented style and competence exerted greater influence over men than did women who were merely competent. Atwater, Carey & Waldman (2001) found that female managers engaging in ‘masculine oriented roles’ (e.g. delivering reprimands) were seen as less effective than male managers by their employees. Brett et al. (2005) showed that women are more effective than men if they use a ‘communal’ style of compliance gaining.
The presented evidence supports the assumption that the use of ‘agentic’ strategies is seen as a traditionally masculine role (Brett et al., 2005; Ritter & Yoder, 2004). So far, the application of role congruity theory has been limited to organizational and experimental settings. Role incongruity was defined as a mismatch between a (communal) female gender role and an (agentic) managerial or leadership role. We suggest that role congruity theory can be extended to [page 5] the context of intra-household time-allocation conflicts. More specifically, we argue that working women experience incongruity between their gender role and their role as (main, secondary, or co-)provider (Hood, 1986) in the household. The traditional provider role has predominantly agentic connotations: “The traditional good provider role took on negative connotations such as distant, strict, harsh, authoritarian, bumbling, and incompetent ... putting priority of job over family... Breadwinning was active, responsible, emotionally invested, demanding, expressive, and measured real devotion” (Christiansen & Palkovitz, 2001). --- Atwater, L., J. Carey & D. Waldman (2001). Gender and discipline in the workplace: Wait until your father gets home. In: Journal of Management, 27, 537-561. Brett J., L. Atwater, D. Waldman (2005). Effective delivery of workplace discipline - Do women have to be more participatory than men? In: GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT 30 (5): 487-513 Hood, J. (1986). The Provider Role – Its Meaning and Measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (2): 349-359 |
The true source is not given. Carli 1999, Carli 2001, Christiansen & Palkovitz 2001, Ritter & Yoder, 2004, and Shackelford, Wood & Worchel 1996 are not found in the reference section of the source. Dsi has a tendency to replace "we" with "the researcher":
Dsi also inserts her topic of "public relations", although the given reference (Hood 1986) does not contain the term. |
|
| [4.] Dsi/Fragment 113 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-10-23 22:16:00 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung, Wotschack Wittek 2006 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 113, Zeilen: 1 ff. (entire page) |
Quelle: Wotschack Wittek 2006 Seite(n): 5, Zeilen: 9 ff. |
|---|---|
| [Based on discourse analysis] of interviews with 45 white professional men, Riley (2003) concludes that despite social change in gender relations and the rise of egalitarian value systems, a legitimate successor to the male provider role has not yet emerged. The role of the provider defines success and status; ‘real’ work; and the legitimate mechanism for the production of male identity” (Riley, 2003). Furthermore, there is strong empirical evidence that women taking a provider role violate gender role expectations (Deutsch & Saxon, 1998; Tichenor, 2005). Though empirical evidence also shows a trend toward more egalitarian gender ideologies regarding family roles both in Europe (Ciabattari, 2001) and the U.S. (Zuo & Tang, 2000), this trend is slower and less pronounced for men, and exhibits considerable cross-national variation (Pfau-Effinger, 2004). In particular higher status men tend to disapprove of women sharing a provider role (Zuo & Tang, 2000).
From the perspective of role congruity theory, the highly agentic connotation of the provider role implies that working women will be likely to experience role incongruity between their (communal) female gender role and their (agentic) provider role. It follows that this role incongruity will affect the effectiveness of their compliance gaining strategies during intra-household time allocation conflicts. Working women using agentic compliance gaining strategies (e.g., forcing) enact the traditional agentic provider model, and will therefore be likely to elicit negative reactions and non-compliance from their male partners because by doing so they deviate from their communal gender role. Conversely, working women who instead use communal compliance gaining strategies (e.g., problem solving, accommodating) to resolve time allocation conflicts with their partner will be more successful in resolving the conflict to their advantage. Ciabattari, T. (2001). Changes in men's conservative gender ideologies: Cohort and period influences. Gender & Society, 15, 574-591. Deutsch, F. M., & Saxon, S. E. (1998). Traditional ideologies, nontraditional lives. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 38, 331-362. Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004). Socio-historical paths of the male breadwinner model – an explanation of cross-national differences. British Journal of Sociology (3): 377-399. Riley, M. (2003). Gender analysis. IGTN. Tichenor, V. J. (2005). Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles, 53, 191-205 Zuo J. & S. Tang (2000). Breadwinner status and gender ideologies of men and women regarding family roles. Sociological Perspectives 43 (1): 29-43 |
Based on discourse analysis of interviews with 45 white professional men, Riley (2003) concludes that despite social change in gender relations and the rise of egalitarian value systems, a legitimate successor to the male provider role has not yet emerged: “The provider role functioned to define success and status; ‘real’ work; and the legitimate mechanism for the production of male identity”. Furthermore, there is strong empirical evidence that women taking a provider role violate gender role expectations (Deutsch & Saxon, 1998; Helms-Erikson et al., 2000; Tichenor, 2005; Willot and Griffin, 2004). Though empirical evidence also shows a trend towards more egalitarian gender ideologies regarding family roles both in Europe (Ciabattari, 2001) and the U.S. (Zuo & Tang, 2000), this trend is slower and less pronounced for men, and exhibits considerable cross-national variation (Pfau-Effinger, 2004). In particular higher status men tend to disapprove of women sharing a provider role (Zuo & Tang, 2000).
From the perspective of role congruity theory, the highly agentic connotation of the provider role implies that working women will be likely to experience role incongruity between their (communal) female gender role and their (agentic) provider role. It follows that this role incongruity will affect the effectiveness of their compliance gaining strategies during intra-household time allocation conflicts. Working women using agentic compliance gaining strategies (e.g. forcing) enact the traditional agentic provider model, and will therefore be likely to elicit negative reactions and non-compliance from their male partners, because by doing so they deviate from their communal gender role. Conversely, working women who instead use communal compliance gaining strategies (e.g. problem solving, accommodating) to resolve time allocation conflicts with their partner will be more successful in resolving the conflict to their advantage. Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004). Socio-historical paths of the male breadwinner model - an explanation of cross-national differences. In: British Journal of Sociology (3): 377-399. Willott S. & C. Griffin (2004). Redundant men: Constraints on identity change. In: Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14 (2): 53-69 Zuo J. & S. Tang (2000). Breadwinner status and gender ideologies of men and women regarding family roles. In: Sociological Perspectives 43 (1): 29-43 |
The true source is not given. The source has no entry in the references for Deutsch & Saxon 1998, Helms-Erikson et al. 2000, Riley 2003, or Tichenor 2005 |
|
| [5.] Dsi/Fragment 237 15 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-10-24 10:30:20 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung, Wotschack Wittek 2006 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 237, Zeilen: 15-20 |
Quelle: Wotschack Wittek 2006 Seite(n): 3, 4, Zeilen: 3: last lines; 4: 1 ff. |
|---|---|
| This theory suggests three assumptions: that the majority of beliefs about the sexes pertain to ‘communal’ and ‘agentic’ attributes; that in order to be effective in their compliance-gaining attempts, the behavior of men and women needs to be consistent with their gender roles, and thus; for women in leadership positions, their gender role is likely to conflict with their managerial role because she deviates from her expected gender role. | [page 3]
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: [...] Second, it argues that in order to be effective in their compliance gaining attempts, the behavior of men and women needs to be consistent with their gender roles. [...] Third, for women in leadership positions, their gender role is likely to conflict with their managerial role: to the degree that the managerial role women have to fill is agentic, the more likely they will elicit negative reactions and non-compliance from others because she deviates from her expected gender role. |
The source is not given. |
|
| [6.] Dsi/Fragment 239 03 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-10-24 10:42:53 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung, Wotschack Wittek 2006 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 239, Zeilen: 3-9, 18-23 |
Quelle: Wotschack Wittek 2006 Seite(n): 4, Zeilen: second and thrid paragraph |
|---|---|
| Second, it argues that in order to gain compliance, men and women should behave according to their gender roles. Therefore, a woman would be more successful in gaining compliance if she used communal strategies, whereas the use of agentic strategies will be more disadvantageous for women than for men. One main difference between role congruity theory and other gender role theories is that it makes no assumptions about gender differences in the use of specific kinds of compliance-gaining behaviors, but only that behaviors that are accepted for a man may not be accepted for a woman.
[...] Third, for women in leadership positions, their gender role is likely to clash with their managerial role, to the extent that the managerial role women have to fill is agentic, but they are likely to draw negative reactions and noncompliance from others because they deviate from their expected gender role. As a result, “women in managerial positions can avoid negative reactions associated with taking a masculine-oriented role by combining the assertive, confident, and decisive behaviors required in this role with a [more communal or feminine style” (Eagly & Karau, 2002).] Eagly, A. H.,& Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. |
Second, it argues that in order to be effective in their compliance gaining attempts, the behavior of men and women needs to be consistent with their gender roles. Thus, women using communal strategies are likely to be more successful in gaining compliance than women using agentic strategies, and the use of agentic strategies will be more disadvantageous for women than for men. A key difference between role congruity theory and other gender role theories is that it makes no assumptions about gender differences in the use of specific kinds of compliance gaining behaviors, but only that behaviors that are accepted for a man may not be accepted for a woman.
Third, for women in leadership positions, their gender role is likely to conflict with their managerial role: to the degree that the managerial role women have to fill is agentic, the more likely they will elicit negative reactions and non-compliance from others because she deviates from her expected gender role. Consequently, “women in managerial positions can avoid negative reactions associated with taking a masculine-oriented role by combining the assertive, confident, and decisive behaviors required in this role with a more communal or feminine style” (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Eagly, A. H.,& Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. In: Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. |
The true source is not given. This text can also be found on page 111. |
|
| [7.] Dsi/Fragment 248 17 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-10-24 10:48:00 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wotschack Wittek 2006 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 248, Zeilen: 17-23 |
Quelle: Wotschack Wittek 2006 Seite(n): 5, Zeilen: second paragraph |
|---|---|
| Moreover, from the perspective of role congruity theory, the highly agentic connotation of the provider role implies that working women will be likely to experience role incongruity between their (communal) female gender role and their (agentic) provider role. It follows that this role incongruity will affect the effectiveness of their compliance gaining strategies during intra-household time allocation conflicts. Working women using agentic compliance gaining strategies (e.g. forcing) enact the traditional agentic provider model, and will therefore be likely to elicit negative reactions and non-[compliance from their male partners, because by doing so they deviate from their communal gender role.] | From the perspective of role congruity theory, the highly agentic connotation of the provider role implies that working women will be likely to experience role incongruity between their (communal) female gender role and their (agentic) provider role. It follows that this role incongruity will affect the effectiveness of their compliance gaining strategies during intra-household time allocation conflicts. Working women using agentic compliance gaining strategies (e.g. forcing) enact the traditional agentic provider model, and will therefore be likely to elicit negative reactions and non-compliance from their male partners, because by doing so they deviate from their communal gender role. |
The source is not given. |
|
| [8.] Dsi/Fragment 249 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-10-24 10:49:37 WiseWoman | Dsi, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wotschack Wittek 2006 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 249, Zeilen: 1-5 |
Quelle: Wotschack Wittek 2006 Seite(n): 5, Zeilen: second paragraph |
|---|---|
| [Working women using agentic compliance gaining strategies (e.g. forcing) enact the traditional agentic provider model, and will therefore be likely to elicit negative reactions and non-]compliance from their male partners, because by doing so they deviate from their communal gender role. Conversely, working women who instead use communal compliance gaining strategies (e.g. problem solving, accommodating) to resolve time allocation conflicts with their partner will be more successful in resolving the conflict to their advantage. | Working women using agentic compliance gaining strategies (e.g. forcing) enact the traditional agentic provider model, and will therefore be likely to elicit negative reactions and non-compliance from their male partners, because by doing so they deviate from their communal gender role. Conversely, working women who instead use communal compliance gaining strategies (e.g. problem solving, accommodating) to resolve time allocation conflicts with their partner will be more successful in resolving the conflict to their advantage. |
The source is not given. |
|