Instructor: Dr. Crystal Hoyt Office Hours: Wed 10am-12noon & by appt. Email

Download 131 Kb.
Size131 Kb.
Women and Leadership: A Stigma Perspective

Leadership 390/ Psychology 359/WGSS 379- Fall 2007
instructor: Dr. Crystal Hoyt Office Hours: Wed 10am-12noon & by appt.

Email: Office Location: Jepson 132

Phone: 804-287-6825

Course Time and Location: Tuesday, Thursday 2:15-3:30pm, Jepson Hall 101
Course Website:

The readings for this course primarily consist of empirical psychological articles. In addition, two books are assigned for this course. The readings may change slightly and other readings may be assigned during the semester. The assigned readings provide the background and context for classroom lecture and discussion, therefore, you should read the readings before the class period during which they are discussed.

  • Bravo, E. (2007). Taking on the big boys: or Why feminism is good for families, business, and the nation. New York: Feminist Press at the City University of New York.

  • Wilson, M. C. (2004). Closing the leadership gap: Why women can and must help run the world. New York: Penguin Group.

Description and Goals of the Course:
The goal of this course is to examine women leaders through the lens of social psychology by examining the psychological literature on gender, stigma, and leadership. The primary focus in this course will be to familiarize you with basic empirical research so that you can: (1) use science to help decipher fact from myth, (2) evaluate and analyze the scientific merit of this research, and (3) apply this research to real world situations. We will examine topics such as the glass ceiling, proposed causes of the glass ceiling, the causes, correlates and consequences of stereotype-related biases against female leaders, and how these biases impact the perception of female leaders as well as the experience of these leaders. In addition to understanding the effects and theoretical origins of biases against women in leadership roles, we will also examine strategies for change.

Course Requirements

Your grade in the course will be determined by performance on the following course requirements:

1. Written Assignments: You will be required to write two papers this semester. The first paper is due October 11. The second paper, an empirical research report, is due on the last day of class. Details for each assignment will be provided in the course.
2. Examinations: There will be two exams in this course, one midterm and one cumulative final. The exams will cover information from both in-class discussions and reading assignments. The exams will consist of short answer and essay questions.
3. Group Research Projects: Groups of students will undertake a semester long group research project. Students will present the results of their project and will submit individual final reports at the end of the semester.

  1. One Book, One Campus Book Discussion Session: You are required to participate in one of the one book, one campus book discussion sessions. You are required to turn in a one to two page write-up on the discussion session within a week of participating. We will be discussing this text in lass on November 20.

  1. Class Participation: This course is predicated on the active participation of all members. You are expected to attend all classes, arrive on time, and fully engage in discussions and activities. The emphasis is on quality of class participation rather than quantity. Each unexcused absence will penalize your final grade. The class discussions and activities are highly dependent upon the assigned reading for the day. You must come to class fully prepared to discuss the assigned readings. Inadequate class participation will lower your course grade.

Makeup Exams and Paper Extension Policy: Only under extraordinary circumstances will a make-up exam be administered or will a late paper by accepted. When these extraordinary circumstances arise, a letter from the Dean is required. A paper turned in late without an acceptable excuse will be docked 10 percentage points for each day it is late. Makeup exams may take an alternative form to that taken by the rest of the class.
Elements of Your Grade:

Grades in this course will be based on your performance on the two exams, the writing assignments, class presentations, and participation in a book discussion. Good performance on each assignment and exam is important to your overall success in this course. Your total points will be based on the following components:

First paper 10%

Research paper 20%

Book discussion 5%

Group presentation 10%

Midterm Exam 20%
Final Exam 35%


Total 100%
Final grades in the course will be based on the percentage of total points that you earn, according to the following cutoffs:

Percentages for final grades:

A 90-100%

B 80-89%
C 70-79%
D 60-69%

F 50-60%

Utter humiliation < 50%

Plus and minus grades are not shown but will be used
Honor Code: The Jepson School supports and adheres to the provisions of the Honor System sanctioned by the School of Arts and Sciences. Every piece or written work presented by individual students must have the honor pledge with the student’s signature on it. The pledge is: “I pledge that I have neither given nor received unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.”

Students with Disabilities: If you have a verified disability and would like to discuss special academic accommodations, please contact me during the first week of class to arrange reasonable and appropriate accommodations.

Class Schedule and Reading Assignments

Aug. 28


Introduction to Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotyping and Stigma: The Basics

Aug. 30

Introducing the Concepts

  • Nelson, T. (2006) The psychology of prejudice (2nd edition). Pearson: London. Chapters 1 & 2.

Sept. 4

Introducing the Concepts Cont.

  • Major, B. N., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma.  Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393-421.

Sept. 6

How Psychologists Study Prejudice and Discrimination

  • Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (2006). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination.

Thompson/Wadsworth. Chapter 2.

  • Jordan & Zanna (2000). How to read a journal article in social psychology. In C. Stangor

(Ed.), Stereotypes and Prejudice. Psychology Press.

Sept. 11

Gender Stereotypes and Sexism

  • Glick, P.M & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.

  • Nelson, T. (2006) The psychology of prejudice (2nd edition). Pearson: London. Chapter 8.

Perceptions of and Responses to Female Leaders

Sept. 13

Gender and Leadership- I

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Sept. 18

Gender and Leadership- II

  • Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1-12.

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637-655.

Sept. 20


  • Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.

  • Heilman, M.E., Wallen, A. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.

Sept. 25

Implicit Attitudes

  • Richeson, J. A., & Ambady, N. (2001). Who’s in charge? Effects of situational roles on automatic gender bias. Sex Roles, 44, 493-512.

  • Rudman, L.A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315-1328.

Sept. 27

Attributions for performance

  • Deaux, K. and Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations for successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 80-85.

  • DeMatteo, J.S., Dobbins, G.D., Myers, S.D., & Facteau, C.L. (1996). Evaluation of leadership in preferential and merit-based leader selection situations. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 41-62.

Oct. 2

Shifting Standards

  • Biernat, M., & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 707-724.

  • Biernat, M. & Vescio, T. K. (2002). She swings, she hits, she’s great, she’s benched: Implications of gender-based shifting standards for judgment and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 66-77.

Experiences of Female Leaders

Oct. 4

Perceiving Discrimination

  • Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S.B., & Major, B. (2006). Prejudice expectations moderate preconscious attention to cues that are threatening to social identity. Psychological Science, 17, 332-338.

  • Swim, J. K. & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse Me--What Did You Just Say?!: Women’s Public and Private Reactions to Sexist Remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68-88.

Oct. 9

Coping with Discrimination

  • Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

  • Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Reacting to impending discrimination: Compensation for prejudice and attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1357-1367.

Oct. 11

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies (Paper 1 due)

  • Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.

  • Von Baeyer, C. L., Sherk, D. L., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Impression management n the job interview: When the female applicant meets the male (chauvinist) interviewer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 45-51.Added

Oct. 16


Oct. 18

Stereotype Threat and Stereotype Reactance

  • Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 276-287.

  • Hoyt, C. & Blascovich, J. (in press). Leadership Efficacy and Women Leaders’ Responses to Stereotype Activation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.

Oct. 23

Midterm Exam

Oct. 25

Gender and Negotiation

  • Bowles, H. R. & McGinn, K. (2005). Claiming authority: Negotiating challenges for women leaders. In D. M. Messick & R. Kramer (Eds.), The Psychology of Leadership: Some New Approaches (pp. 191-208). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 84-103.Added

Oct. 30

Terror Management Theory, Gender, and Leadership

  • Hoyt, C., Simon, S., & Reid, L. (in press). The Effect of Mortality Salience on Leader Preference Based on Gender. Leadership Quarterly.

  • Arndt, J. Greenberg, J. Schimel, J. Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (2002). To belong or not to belong, that is the question: Terror management and identification with gender and ethnicity. JPSP, 83, 26-43.

Nov. 1

No Class: Work on Group Projects

Decreasing Prejudice and Discrimination

Nov. 6

Closing the Leadership Gap

  • Wilson, M. C. (2004). Closing the leadership gap: Why women can and must help run the world. New York: Penguin Group.

Nov. 8

Affirmative Action

  • Crosby, F., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58, 93-115.

  • Heilman, M. E., Rivero, J. C., & Brett, J. F. (1991). Skirting the competence issues: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on task choices of women and men. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 99-105.

  • Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. (1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62-68.

Nov. 13

Role Models

  • Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642-658.

  • Lockwood, P. (2006). ‘ Someone like me can be successful’: Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 36-46.

Nov. 15

Other Approaches

  • Yoder, J. D., Schleicher, T. L., & McDonald, T. W. (1998). Empowering token women leaders: The importance of organizationally legitimated credibility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 209-222.

  • Carli, L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725-741.

Nov. 20

One Book, One Campus

  • Bravo, E. (2007). Taking on the big boys: or Why feminism is good for families, business, and the nation. New York: Feminist Press at the City University of New York.

Nov. 22


Nov. 27

Group Presentations

Nov. 29

Group Presentations

Dec. 4

Guest Speaker: Dr. Alice Eagly

Dec. 6

Course Wrap-Up

  • Paper 2 due

Take home final exam due by TUESday, Dec 18.

Download 131 Kb.

Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page