INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN
IMPLICIT THEORIES OF
LEADERSHIP ABILITY AND
SELF-EFFICACY
Predicting Responses to Stereotype Threat
JENI L. BURNETTE, JEFFREY M. POLLACK,
AND CRYSTAL L. HOYT
Extending research on implicit theories to the leadership domain, we examined how individual differences in belief about the malleability of leadership ability influenced responses to stereotype threat. The
study consisted of two time periods. At time 1, we assessed individual differences in implicit theories of
leadership ability and self-efficacy for leadership. At time 2, we activated a stereotype threat in a highstakes environment. Results revealed that women reported lower self-evaluation after a stereotype threat
when they had low self-efficacy and believed leadership ability to be fixed (entity theory) rather than
malleable (incremental theory). Results are discussed in terms of how implicit theories generate a network of allied cognitions and emotions that subsequently predict stable patterns of behavior.
The most dangerous leadership myth is that leaders are born—that there is a genetic factor
to leadership. This myth asserts that people simply either have certain charismatic qualities
or not. That’s nonsense; in fact, the opposite is true. Leaders are made rather than born.
—Warren G. Bennis
Leadership has far-reaching consequences in business and
society. However, in the United States relatively few elite
positions of power are held by women (Eagly & Carli,
46
2007). This lack of representation of women in the upper
echelons of American business and government is a social
issue (e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2007; Hoyt & Blascovich,
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 3, Number 4, 2010
©2010 University of Phoenix
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI:10.1002/jls.20138
2007). It is a problem, we believe, that may be exacerbated by the “dangerous leadership myth” noted by
Bennis (2003, 2007), a pioneer in the field of leadership
studies. Specifically, we suggest that thinking of
leadership as an innate trait may serve as a barrier to female leadership success. In contrast, believing that leadership ability can be developed may contribute to
leadership aspirations for females who contend with debilitating suspicions of leadership inferiority (Aronson,
Fried, & Good, 2002; Hoyt, 2005; Hoyt & Chemers,
2008). The goal of the current research is to examine how
individual differences in beliefs about the malleable versus fixed nature of leadership ability contribute to the
process of overcoming negative stereotypes. Specifically,
we build on Dweck’s implicit theory framework (Dweck,
2009; Molden & Dweck, 2006) and extend it to a leadership context to explore responses to the stereotype that
females are inferior leaders.
Stereotype Threat
Stereotype threat occurs when an individual is in a position to potentially confirm a negative stereotype that
disparages the ability of members of his or her own social group. Stereotype threat can contribute to the underperformance of individuals belonging to a range of
negatively stereotyped groups; for example, women on
math tasks (e.g., Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000) or Latinos
and African Americans on intellectual tasks (Aronson,
Quinn, & Spencer, 1998; Gonzales, Blanton, &
Williams, 2002; Steele & Aronson, 1995). The selfblame and loss of self-esteem seen by those suffering
from stereotype threat can produce a vicious cycle of
increased anxiety, feelings of despair, and subsequent
poor performance. Because stereotypes are pervasive and
difficult to change, researchers have begun to examine
other ways to help individuals overcome stereotype
threat (e.g., Heilman, 2001). In the current research,
we focus on individual differences in implicit theories
and self-efficacy for leadership as two relevant theoretical perspectives for understanding who overcomes
stereotype threat.
Implicit Theories
Individuals hold implicit theories of diverse human
characteristics (e.g., intelligence, personality), and these
theories vary in the degree to which such characteristics
are conceptualized as stable (entity theorists) versus
changeable (incremental theorists; for a review see
Molden & Dweck, 2006). Individual differences in implicit theories have been shown to have far-reaching consequences in the wake of challenges and setbacks. Across
an array of domains including academics (e.g., Hong,
Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999), athletics (e.g.,
Ommundsen, 2003), and negotiation (e.g., Kray &
Haselhuhn, 2007), results consistently reveal that individuals who hold incremental-oriented theories seek challenges, value effort, and persist in the face of obstacles. In
contrast, individuals who hold entity-oriented theories
avoid challenges, feel helpless, and resign when setbacks
arise (Dweck, 2009).
Research indicates that stereotype threat can lead to
negative self-evaluations similar to those experienced
after setbacks by individuals who hold an entity theory of ability (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003). For
example, in an academic context minority students
tend to obtain lower grades than their white counterparts, in part because of the negative stereotype threatening minority students’ intellectual ability (Steele &
Aronson, 1995). However, an intervention encouraging
an incremental message of intelligence counteracted
the potential deleterious effects of stereotype threats.
Specifically, minority students in the incremental message condition reported greater enjoyment, engagement, and higher grades for academic endeavors
relative to those in a control group (Aronson et al.,
2002). Additionally, in spite of the gender-math stereotype, a sample of middle school female students mentored to view intelligence as malleable scored higher
on math standardized test scores than females in a control condition (Good et al., 2003). Experimental results from these interventions suggest that an
incremental mind-set can insulate individuals from the
negative effects of stereotype threats.
Why are individual differences in implicit theories
relevant when challenges or stereotype threats arise? For
entity theorists, a failure or negative stereotype represents an ability that cannot be developed or improved.
For example, while working on a challenging academic
task, students who held an entity theory indicated they
“wouldn’t feel smart enough to make it” (Dweck, 1999,
p. 46). Unfortunately, the derogation is not specific
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
47
to the task but also extends to feelings about the self.
Students who held entity theories of intelligence also
reported feeling dejected, depressed, and hopeless. Alternatively, for students who held incremental theories,
setbacks represented an opportunity to learn. This
mastery-oriented response of incremental theorists is in
stark contrast to the feelings of helplessness in the wake
of negative information that individuals who hold entity-oriented theories often report.
approach, examined the tendency for individuals to engage in self-defeating behavior after social exclusion.
Results revealed that participants who held an entity
theory, rather than an incremental theory, of social
ability and low social efficacy reported nonadaptive
responses to exclusion (Briones, Tabernero, &
Arenas, 2007).
Conceptualization of Current Study
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is another factor that can buffer the negative responses associated with taxing situations, including stereotype threat. Social-cognitive theory
describes self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required
to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).
Unlike more global concepts such as self-esteem, selfefficacy is domain-specific and refers to individuals’ beliefs about what they can do with the skills they have.
Self-efficacy is critical in helping individuals navigate
challenging circumstances because it influences goals,
thought patterns, persistence, and stress reactions
(Bandura, 1997). For example, after negative stereotype activation, women who reported high leadership
efficacy demonstrated heightened performance, greater
domain identification, and increased well-being relative to those who reported low self-efficacy (Hoyt &
Blascovich, 2007).
Although research suggests that implicit theories and
self-efficacy provide perspectives through which responses to stereotype threat can be understood, to our
knowledge research has yet to merge these two approaches to examine responses to a leadership stereotype threat. In various domains, research hints at the
potential benefits of such integration. For example, a
study on academic remedial action revealed that students who held incremental or entity theories did not
differ in their desire to take a needed course if they had
high academic self-efficacy. However, when academic
self-efficacy was low, students who held entity theories
of intelligence reported less interest than students who
held incremental theories in developing the necessary
skills (see Hong et al., 1999). An additional study, merging the implicit theory framework with a self-efficacy
48
In the current research, we integrate the implicittheory approach and self-efficacy theory to examine
women’s responses to leadership stereotypes. Stereotype
threat may emerge in a leadership context because of
the perception that women are less competent and less
worthy of positions of leadership than men (e.g., Boldry,
Wood, & Kashy, 2001; Heilman, 2001). An implicittheory perspective, in the context of leadership, refers
to the beliefs people hold regarding whether leadership
ability is a fixed entity or a malleable attribute. For example, some individuals might believe that “trying to
change your leadership ability is like trying to change
your natural eye and hair color. You can’t do it because
leaders are born.” In contrast, other individuals may believe “practice, hard work, effort, and persistence can
improve leadership ability.”
One important note bears mention. The implicit theories studied in the current paper are separate and distinct from similarly named implicit personality
leadership theories (ILTs), and research related to various implicit perceptions of leaders, followers, teachers,
and mentors (e.g., Middlebrooks & Haberkorn, 2009;
Salter, Green, Ree, Carmody-Bubb, & Duncan, 2009).
Specifically, ILT refers to individuals’ widely held and
shared conceptions of what constitutes a leader (Eden &
Leviatan, 1975; Forsyth & Nye, 2008). In contrast,
Dweck’s implicit self-theory, although still considered
a theory of personality, builds on a social cognitive perspective to examine differences in beliefs about the malleability of human attributes (Dweck, 2009).
Implicit theory research has focused on how these beliefs influence affect, cognition, and behavior, especially
in the wake of setbacks. In the current study, we
suggest that endorsing a more incremental-oriented theory of leadership ability, rather than an entityoriented theory, can buffer against the potential deleterious
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
effects of low self-efficacy in the wake of a leadership
stereotype threat. To test this hypothesis, at time 1 female participants completed measures of the independent variables including implicit theories of leadership
and self-efficacy for leadership. At time 2, one week
later, we activated a leadership stereotype threat in a laboratory setting and created a high-stakes environment in
which participants believed their leadership ability
would be evaluated. We then examined self-evaluations,
which have been shown to be an important predictor of
female leadership achievement (e.g., Davies, Spencer, &
Steele, 2005; Hoyt, 2005; Hoyt & Blascovich, 2007).
Here are our specific hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Individuals who are more oriented toward entity beliefs of leadership, relative to incremental beliefs, will report more negative self-esteem and
lower postthreat efficacy in response to stereotype
threat.
Hypothesis 2: Individuals with low (relative to high)
self-efficacy for leadership (SEL) will report more negative self-esteem and lower postthreat efficacy in response to stereotype threat.
Hypothesis 3: Implicit theories of leadership will interact with self-efficacy in predicting responses to stereotype threat. Specifically, individuals’ self-esteem and
postthreat efficacy will be more strongly influenced
by initial self-efficacy for individuals who hold moreentity-oriented (relative to incremental-oriented) beliefs of leadership ability.
Method
PARTICIPANTS
We recruited approximately 50 undergraduates to participate. We chose this number taking into account the
number of variables in the proposed model and the expected effect size, which suggest that a sample of 34 to
76 participants should yield adequate power (Cohen,
1992). Specifically we recruited 51 undergraduate
women, over the age of 18, from a small liberal arts college in the U.S. Southeast. Participants received either
course credit or five dollars as an incentive for participating. We recruited via introductory psychology classes
and flyers on campus advertising the experiment.
The average age was 19.24 (SD 1.32). Participants
consisted primarily of freshmen and sophomores (64%).
Approximately three-fourths of the participants were
Caucasian (78% white, 10% Asian American, 6% black
or African American, 6% other/mixed).
PROCEDURES
Participation involved completing a short Web-based
survey (time 1) as well as coming into the laboratory
for a 30-minute research session (time 2). At time 1,
participants first consented to participate online prior to
completing demographic information along with a
questionnaire on implicit theory of leadership and selfefficacy for leadership. Participants then signed up to
complete time 2 of the study. One week later, participants came to the lab in groups of three or four. At this
point, the researcher again asked participants to sign a
consent form. Then, to manipulate stereotype threat, in
line with past research (Hoyt 2005; Hoyt & Blascovich,
2007, in press), we provided participants with statistics
indicating the high number of men in leadership positions relative to women and informed them that “we
want to explore why these numbers are so high for men
and low for women, considering that research suggests
that gender differences in leadership performance do
emerge.” We focused on the stereotype threat condition, rather than including an identity-safe or control
condition, on the basis of research suggesting that implicit theories matter most when individuals are faced
with a clear challenge or failure. It is only after such
threats to self-esteem that holding an entity theory renders individuals vulnerable to helpless and defensive behavior. Thus, much research on implicit theories has
focused on conditions of vulnerability such as setbacks
or stereotype threat. Additionally, in line with past
stereotype threat research (e.g., Aronson et al., 2002),
we created a high-stakes environment by informing participants that they would be asked to work together in
the group and would be assigned either the leadership
role or the active participant role. We incorporated this
component to lead participants to believe there was a
possibility of confirming the negative stereotype if assigned to the leadership position.
Following introduction of the high-stakes stereotype
threat environment and prior to completing the dependent measures, participants completed a few filler tasks
to avoid direct association with the threat and outcome
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
49
variables (i.e., postthreat efficacy and self-esteem). We
immediately debriefed participants and informed them
they would not be participating in a group activity. To
ensure that participants would not have suspicion regarding the desired outcomes of the study, we used methods
similar to those in past leadership stereotype threat studies
that were successful in not arousing suspicion (Hoyt &
Blascovich, 2007, in press). Accordingly, students did not
report suspicion regarding the nature of the study.
MEASURES
items were “I feel confident about my abilities” and “I feel
inferior to others at this moment” (reverse scored). Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement using
a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (disagree completely)
to 5 (agree completely). The self-esteem measure exhibited
good internal reliability (a 0.88). Heatherton and
Polivy’s scale (1991) has been well validated, and modified assessments have also been shown to exhibit adequate reliability and validity (Hoyt, Aguilar, Kaiser,
Blascovich, & Lee, 2007; Hoyt & Blascovich, 2007,
in press).
Implicit Self-Theory of Leadership
Self-Efficacy for Leadership (SEL): Postthreat
We administered a three-item implicit self-theory of leadership scale by modifying Dweck’s implicit theory of intelligence assessment, replacing the word intelligence with
leadership or lead. An example item: “To be honest, you
can’t really change your ability to lead.” In this shortened
scale, participants indicated their agreement or disagreement with the items using a 7-point scale that ranged
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We recoded such that higher numbers represent agreement
with an incremental theory (a 0.62). Past studies extending implicit theories to novel domains have used similar methods and found adequate reliability and validity
(e.g., Burnette, in press; Kray & Haselhuhn, 2007).
We used the same assessment of SEL as in the initial
Web-based survey, again with good reliability (a 0.88), to examine if efficacy after the threat varied as a
function of initial self-efficacy for leadership and implicit theory.
Self-Efficacy for Leadership (SEL): Initially
Prior to the threat, we used a self-efficacy for leadership measure developed by Murphy (1992) and used
in previous research examining leadership self-efficacy
and stereotype threat (Hoyt, 2005; Hoyt & Blascovich,
2007, in press). Example items are “Overall, I believe
that I can lead a work group successfully” and “In general, I am very good at leading a group of my peers.”
Participants indicated their agreement or disagreement
on the seven-item measure using a 7-point scale that
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The SEL measure at time 1 exhibited good internal reliability (a 0.78). Past studies have found similar
reliability and have exhibited good discriminant, convergent, and construct validity (Hoyt & Blascovich,
2007; Murphy, 1992; Murphy & Ensher, 1999).
Self-Esteem
We used a seven-item modified assessment of self-esteem
from the Heatherton and Polivy (1991) scale. Example
50
Perception of Threat
We also included a single-item assessment of perception
of leadership stereotype threat to confirm that incremental and entity theorists did not differ in their perceptions
of gender differences in leadership ability. Specifically,
we asked participants to indicate their agreement or
disagreement using a 5-point scale that ranged from
1 (disagree completely) to 5 (agree completely) on the
item “There are gender differences in leadership ability.”
Results
For our primary hypotheses, we used the standard regression approach to explore first- and second-order effects
with continuous variables (Cohen, Cohen, West, &
Aiken, 2003). To confirm that implicit theories of leadership ability did not predict differences in perception
of leadership ability in the wake of the stereotype threat,
we regressed the single item perception of threat assessment on implicit theories of leadership ability.
Results revealed no significant difference [b 0.10,
t(45) 0.71, p 0.48].
For our primary hypotheses, we first regressed the
measure of self-esteem on implicit theories of leadership, self-efficacy for leadership, and their interaction
term (see Table 1 for means and SDs of all variables in
model). In support of the first two hypotheses, results
revealed a significant effect for implicit self-theory
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable
M
SD
1
1. ITL
5.13
1.1
—
2. SEL Time 1
4.94
0.68
0.25
3. Self-esteem
3.64
0.69
0.18
4. SEL Time 2
5.15
0.70
0.13
2
3
4
—
0.41**
—
0.69***
0.53***
—
Note: N 51, *p 0.05. **p 0.01. ***p 0.001.
ITL implicit theory of leadership, SEL Time 1 prethreat self-efficacy for leadership ability, self-esteem leadership self-esteem, and SEL Time 2 postthreat efficacy for leadership ability.
Figure 1. Predicting Self-Esteem at Time
Figure 2. Predicting Postthreat Efficacy at
2 from Theory and Efficacy at Time 1
Time 2 from Theory and Efficacy at Time 1
4.5
7
Entity
6.5
Incremental
4
Self-Efficacy Time 2
Self-Esteem Time 2
Entity
3.5
3
Incremental
6
5
5.5
4.5
2.5
Low Efficacy
4
High Efficacy
Low Efficacy
[b 0.27, t(45) 2.06, p 0.05] and for self-efficacy for leadership [b 0.46, t(45) 3.44, p 0.01].
Specifically, results indicate that greater orientation toward an incremental self-theory of leadership ability and
greater self-efficacy for leadership predicted higher selfesteem following the stereotype threat. However, consistent with hypothesis 3, an implicit theory self-efficacy
interaction qualified these first-order effects [b 0.25, t(45) 2.02, p 0.05]. As illustrated in Figure 1, and in line with predictions, tests of simple slopes
conditioned one standard deviation above and below
the means of implicit theory and leadership self-efficacy
(Aiken & West, 1991) revealed a significant association
of self-efficacy with self-esteem among individuals with
entity-oriented beliefs (1SD) [b 0.70, t(45) 4.24, p 0.001] but a nonsignificant association for
individuals with incremental-oriented beliefs (1SD)
[b 0.19, t(45) 1.00, p 0.05].
We next regressed the postthreat measure of selfefficacy on implicit theories of leadership, initial
High Efficacy
leadership self-efficacy, and their interaction term. Implicit
theories did not directly predict postthreat efficacy. However, not surprisingly analyses revealed that higher initial
efficacy predicted higher postthreat efficacy [b 0.67,
t(46) 6.26 p 0.001]. We also explored the interactive
effect of initial self-efficacy and implicit theory on postthreat leadership self-efficacy. In support of hypothesis 3,
results revealed a significant effect of the implicit theory self-efficacy of leadership interaction effect on postthreat
leadership self-efficacy, after controlling for initial selfefficacy scores [b 0.21, t(46) 2.04, p 0.05].
Results are depicted in Figure 2. Consistent with the pattern
of results for self-esteem, tests of simple slopes conditioned
one standard deviation above and below the means of implicit theory and initial efficacy (Aiken & West, 1991) revealed a stronger association of initial efficacy with posttask
efficacy among individuals with more-entity-oriented beliefs
[b 0.88, t(46) 6.49, p 0 .001] compared to individuals with incremental beliefs [b 0.46, t(58) 2.85,
p 0.01].
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
51
Discussion
In extending implicit self-theories to a leadership context, our findings support a long line of research across
domains revealing that entity theorists struggle in challenging times, whereas incremental theorists respond
with more mastery-oriented coping (Molden & Dweck,
2006). Specifically, results from the current research suggest that incremental beliefs about leadership ability predicted greater self-esteem after a stereotype threat relative
to entity beliefs. Furthermore, the results corroborated
previous research highlighting the important role of leadership self-efficacy in helping people successfully navigate leadership challenges (Bandura, 1997; Hoyt &
Blascovich, 2007). High initial leadership self-efficacy
buffered the deleterious effects of stereotype threat on
both self-esteem and postthreat efficacy. However, in
contrast to predictions, implicit theories did not directly
predict self-efficacy after threat.
Results supported the proposition that the relation
between implicit theories, self-efficacy, and stereotype
threat is more complex than direct effects alone. Rather,
individual differences in implicit theories moderated
the impact of leadership efficacy on responses to threat.
Specifically, results indicated that for individuals who
held incremental-oriented theories, initial selfefficacy had no effect on subsequent self-esteem and a
limited effect on postthreat efficacy. In contrast, for individuals who held entity-oriented theories with low
self-efficacy, the leadership stereotype threat resulted in
classic stereotype threat vulnerability responses including lower self-esteem and significantly reduced postthreat self-efficacy (Steele & Aronson, 1995).
LIMITATIONS
Although findings primarily supported our hypotheses,
we highlight a few limitations of the present research.
First, we have focused on the negative ramifications of
entity theorizing in responding to leadership threats.
However, it is important to note that implicit theories
have potential costs and benefits. It is possible that entity
theorists could experience a “roller coaster” effect with
lower lows and higher highs (Harackiewicz & Elliot,
1995, p. 299). That is, since entity theorists believe performance to be indicative of a fixed ability, when successful they should theoretically reap the positive affective,
cognitive, and motivational benefits. Thus, future research
52
should also examine the interaction of implicit theories
and self-efficacy after affirmative and successful
outcomes.
Second, the sample was limited to a rather small number of university-age females in the United States. It is
plausible that there could be important age, experience,
and cultural differences in adoption of entity and incremental beliefs of leadership. Although past research on individual differences in implicit theories suggests that the
affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to challenges
emerge across cultures (e.g., Hong et al., 1999) and developmental stages (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck,
2007), future inquiry should explore cultural and intergenerational differences within a leadership context (Dickson,
Den Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003). Furthermore, future
research should recruit diverse samples with varying backgrounds and educational experiences because these demographic differences may influence self-concept.
Additionally, future research should replicate the moderation effect with larger samples, considering the relatively
small sample used in the current study (Aguinis, 1995).
Another limitation is that our implicit theory measure had average internal reliability. A substantial drawback of using brief but valid measures is that their
unreliability diminishes the likelihood of detecting effects. Thus, even though we found significant results in
spite of the diminished reliability, future research should
replicate and extend findings from this initial line of inquiry using reliable assessments of constructs, including behavioral outcomes related to leadership emergence
and effectiveness. Additionally, to gain an understanding of the causal role of implicit self-theories in leaders’
responses to challenging situations, future research
should attempt to experimentally manipulate implicit
theories. Although implicit theories are thought to be
trait-level constructs, research suggests they can be successfully primed, manipulated, and changed through
interventions (e.g., Burns & Isbell, 2007; Coleman,
2004). Future research could assess how, and to what
degree, incremental theories of leadership can be encouraged and if such manipulations can contribute to a
causal understanding of the relation among variables.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The current work focused on a specific challenge relevant
to females within a leadership context. However, leaders
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
face a variety of challenges in today’s complex global marketplace. For example, government and business leaders
are asked to deal with issues related to downsizing, competition in the global economy, ethical dilemmas, economic downturn, and the struggle to develop procedures
that lead to success in free markets (Boyatzis, 2008). The
burden to overcome these obstacles and ensure the success of a country or an organization is often the responsibility of leaders who are asked to set a path and follow it
despite high risk of failure. Considering the number of
challenging situations leaders may face, future work could
examine how implicit theories and self-efficacy influence
leadership performance and motivation when leaders face
additional situations where there are negative expectations
about the potential for success. Empirical demonstrations
reveal that expectations are fundamental in promoting
achievement (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Carver &
Scheier, 1998). However, whether one responds with
doubt or confidence may depend in part on one’s implicit theory. Future research could thus explore if holding an incremental theory of leadership helps leaders
navigate other challenging situations and low expectations for success.
Future work could also extend the current findings
beyond the context of leadership. For example, merging
recent work extending implicit theories to the domain
of negotiation (Kray & Haselhuhn, 2007) with theories regarding the gender wage gap (e.g., Babcock &
Laschever, 2003), future work could examine if an incremental theory of negotiation skills fosters more active
negotiation for females. Examining how implicit theories interact with various self-concepts to predict response to multiple challenges across an array of contexts
may prove useful both practically and theoretically.
Future research could also examine the application
of interventions aimed at helping to alleviate the negative consequences of having low self-efficacy or holding entity beliefs in the wake of stereotype threat. For
example, on a practical level data indicate that the costs
associated with training new employees are substantial
for contemporary companies (Wentland, 2003). As a
result, staffing firms and human resource consultants
in the employee selection and training processes may
be able to use the findings from the current study
to identify individuals who have the propensity (e.g.,
individuals who have incremental-oriented beliefs,
and/or high leadership self-efficacy) to respond effectively in leadership situations. For individuals who may
not respond well in challenging leadership situations
(e.g., entity-oriented beliefs, low leadership self-efficacy), staffing firms and consultants can provide targeted training and facilitation. However, before
applications and interventions are examined, future work
is still needed to corroborate and build on the current
findings. We hope this initial extension of implicit theories to a leadership context fosters such exploration.
Conclusion
To our knowledge, our research is the first to merge
Dweck’s implicit self-theory approach (1999) with the
self-efficacy literature to examine how female leaders respond to stereotype threat. This perspective has the potential to further knowledge about individual differences
in response to challenge. An imperative component of
personality psychology, which is focused on investigating
individual differences, is not simply an understanding
of what behavioral traits people display; it is also important to understand how people function and cope
in the wake of a setback. Indeed, if we want to know
who someone really is, we often ask questions about how
he or she copes when life is less than ideal (Molden &
Dweck, 2006). The implicit theory perspective, similar to other personality theories (e.g., Mischel & Shoda,
1995), suggests that individual differences in core beliefs about human attributes generate “a network of allied beliefs, goals, and emotions, that, in turn, create
important stable patterns of behavior” (Molden &
Dweck, 2006, p. 200–201; see also Cervone, 2004).
Similarly, the current work suggests that individual differences in beliefs about the nature of leadership ability
and one’s own leadership efficacy predict self-evaluations
in the wake of stereotype threat.
Research on leadership ability and emergence has a
long history of examining the question of whether leaders are made or born. For example, early research building on Carlyle’s “great man” theory (1907), the notion
that history is shaped by the forces of extraordinary leadership, has focused on the traits and genetic underpinnings of leadership ability (e.g., Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson,
Zhang, & McGue, 2006; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt,
2002). However, theories of leadership emergence and
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
53
effectiveness also recognize the multidimensional nature of leadership behavior, including the contribution
of social, cognitive, and situational constructs (e.g.,
Chan & Drasgow, 2001). Initial results from the current
study suggest there is potential value in encouraging individuals to believe that leaders are made, not born.
References
Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power with moderated multiple
regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21,
1141–1158.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects
of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
38, 113–125.
Aronson, J., Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (1998). Stereotype
threat and the academic performance of minorities and women. In
J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The targets perspective
(pp. 83–103). San Diego: Academic Press.
Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue,
M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic
and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1–20.
Aspinwall, L., & Taylor, S. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation:
A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences
and coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 989–1003.
Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation
and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Holt.
Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader: The leadership classic. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern
world: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist,
62, 2–5.
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit
theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent
transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.
Boldry, J., Wood, W., & Kashy, D. A. (2001). Gender stereotypes
and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 689–705.
54
Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal
of Management Development, 27, 5–12.
Briones, A., Tabernero, C., & Arenas, A. (2007). Effects of disposition and self-regulation on self-defeating behavior. Journal of Social
Psychology, 147, 657–679.
Burnette, J. L. (in press). Implicit theories of body weight:
Entity beliefs can weigh you down. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin.
Burns, K., & Isbell, L. (2007). Promoting malleability is not one
size fits all: Priming implicit theories of intelligence as a function of
self-theories. Self and Identity, 6, 51–63.
Carlyle, T. (1907). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological Review, 111, 183–204.
Chan, K., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481–498.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
155–159.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied
multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd
Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, P. (2004). Implicit theories of organizational power
and priming effects on managerial power-sharing decisions:
An experimental study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34,
297–321.
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.
Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003).
Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making
progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14,
729–768.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2009). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 17, 391–394.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive
approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 25,
109–116.
Hoyt, C., & Blascovich, J. (in press). The role of self-efficacy and
stereotype activation on cardiovascular, behavioral and self-report
responses in the leadership domain. Leadership Quarterly.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. H. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of
leadership. Harvard Business Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hoyt, C. L., & Chemers, M. M. (2008). Social stigma and leadership: A long climb up a slippery ladder. In C. L. Hoyt, G. R.
Goethals, & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads:
Leadership and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 165–180). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Eden, D., & Leviatan, V. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisor behavior
scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736–740.
Forsyth, D. R., & Nye, J. L. (2008). Seeing and being a leader: The
perceptual, cognitive, and interpersonal roots of conferred influence. In C. L. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals, & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads: Leadership and psychology ( Vol. 1,
pp. 116–131). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., & Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects
of stereotype threat and double-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28, 659–670.
Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problemsolving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11,
365–371.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
Kray, L. J., & Haselhuhn, M. (2007). Implicit negotiation beliefs
and performance: Longitudinal and experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 49–64.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the
effects of stereotype threat. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24,
645–662.
Middlebrooks, A. E., & Haberkorn, J. T. (2009). Implicit leader
development: The mentor role as prefatory leadership context. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 7–22.
Harackiewicz, J., & Elliot, A. (1995). Life is a roller coaster when
you view the world through entity glasses. Psychological Inquiry, 6,
298–301.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review,
102, 246–268.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation
of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 895–910.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599.
Hoyt, C. L. (2005). The role of leadership efficacy and stereotype activation in women’s identification with leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 2–14.
Hoyt, C. L., Aguilar, L., Kaiser, C., Blascovich, J., & Lee, K. (2007).
The self-protective and undermining effects of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 884–893.
Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, L. (2007). Leadership efficacy and women
leaders’ responses to stereotype activation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 595–616.
Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning”
in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61,
192–203.
Murphy, S. E. (1992). The contribution of leadership experience
and self-efficacy to group performance under evaluation apprehension.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington,
Seattle.
Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (1999). The effects of leader
and subordinate characteristics in the development of leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
1371–1394.
Ommundsen, Y. (2003). Implicit theories of ability and self-regulation
strategies in physical education classes. Educational Psychology, 23,
141–157.
Salter, C. R., Green, M., Ree, M., Carmody-Bubb, M., & Duncan,
P. A. (2009). A study of follower’s personality, implicit leadership
perceptions, and leadership ratings. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2,
48–60.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
55
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
Wentland, D. (2003). The strategic training of employees model:
Balancing organizational constraints and training content. S.A.M.
Advanced Management Journal, 68, 56–63.
Jeni L. Burnette is an assistant professor of psychology at the
University of Richmond. She holds a Ph.D. in social psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University. She can
be reached at [email protected].
56
Jeffrey M. Pollack is an assistant professor of management in the Robins School of Business at the University
of Richmond. He holds a Ph.D. from Virginia Commonwealth University. He can be reached at jpollack@
richmond.edu.
Crystal L. Hoyt is associate professor of leadership studies at the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the
University of Richmond. She holds a Ph.D. from University of California, Santa Barbara. She can be reached
at [email protected].
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 3 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls