Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?

Based on Role Congruity Theory, we tested the hypothesis of gender bias by examining gender differences in observers’ evaluations of the awareness and acceptability of workplace incivility gender-dyad interaction. Three hundred and ninety-six Spanish high school students (55.3% female) read one scen...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Carmona-Cobo, Isabel, Lopez-Zafra, Esther, Garrosa, Eva
Tipo de documento: artigo
Estado:Versión aceptada para publicación
Data de publicação:2019
País:España
Recursos:Universidad de Jaén
Repositório:RUJA. Repositorio Institucional de la Producción Científica de la Universidad de Jaén
OAI Identifier:oai:ruja.ujaen.es:10953/2064
Acesso em linha:https://hdl.handle.net/10953/2064
Access Level:Acceso aberto
Palavra-chave:Gender bias
masculine domain
role congruency
observers
workplace incivility
id ES_9b8d22efee2f1f579b2390613e25fcfa
oai_identifier_str oai:ruja.ujaen.es:10953/2064
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?Carmona-Cobo, IsabelLopez-Zafra, EstherGarrosa, EvaGender biasmasculine domainrole congruencyobserversworkplace incivilityBased on Role Congruity Theory, we tested the hypothesis of gender bias by examining gender differences in observers’ evaluations of the awareness and acceptability of workplace incivility gender-dyad interaction. Three hundred and ninety-six Spanish high school students (55.3% female) read one scenario of overt incivility (publicly humiliates and openly doubts the employee’s judgment) or covert (omits and pays little attention) from a leader (female vs. male) toward a subordinate (female vs. male) in engineering. Results indicated gender differences among observers. From the leader actor of incivility, males were more aware and accepted less the incivility when performed by a female leader in a male domain; whereas females were more aware and accepted less incivility than males in all cases. Regarding the subordinate target of incivility, only females were more aware and accepted less incivility, and both males and females were more aware and accepted less covert incivility. Our results reveal practical implications for interventions from a gender perspective.This research was supported by a project from the Directorate General of Scientific and Technical Research of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant number FEM2012-34692). We are grateful to Madeline Heilman for assistance with suggestions that significantly improved the final design of the study.WILEY202420242019info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/10953/2064reponame:RUJA. Repositorio Institucional de la Producción Científica de la Universidad de Jaéninstname:Universidad de JaénInglésScandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2019, 60, 628–636CC0 1.0 Universalhttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:ruja.ujaen.es:10953/20642026-06-24T12:41:07Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?
title Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?
spellingShingle Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?
Carmona-Cobo, Isabel
Gender bias
masculine domain
role congruency
observers
workplace incivility
title_short Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?
title_full Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?
title_fullStr Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?
title_full_unstemmed Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?
title_sort Observers’ reactions to workplace incivility in the masculine domain: How does role congruency explain gender bias in future workers?
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Carmona-Cobo, Isabel
Lopez-Zafra, Esther
Garrosa, Eva
author Carmona-Cobo, Isabel
author_facet Carmona-Cobo, Isabel
Lopez-Zafra, Esther
Garrosa, Eva
author_role author
author2 Lopez-Zafra, Esther
Garrosa, Eva
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Gender bias
masculine domain
role congruency
observers
workplace incivility
topic Gender bias
masculine domain
role congruency
observers
workplace incivility
description Based on Role Congruity Theory, we tested the hypothesis of gender bias by examining gender differences in observers’ evaluations of the awareness and acceptability of workplace incivility gender-dyad interaction. Three hundred and ninety-six Spanish high school students (55.3% female) read one scenario of overt incivility (publicly humiliates and openly doubts the employee’s judgment) or covert (omits and pays little attention) from a leader (female vs. male) toward a subordinate (female vs. male) in engineering. Results indicated gender differences among observers. From the leader actor of incivility, males were more aware and accepted less the incivility when performed by a female leader in a male domain; whereas females were more aware and accepted less incivility than males in all cases. Regarding the subordinate target of incivility, only females were more aware and accepted less incivility, and both males and females were more aware and accepted less covert incivility. Our results reveal practical implications for interventions from a gender perspective.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019
2024
2024
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
format article
status_str acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10953/2064
url https://hdl.handle.net/10953/2064
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2019, 60, 628–636
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv CC0 1.0 Universal
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv CC0 1.0 Universal
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv WILEY
publisher.none.fl_str_mv WILEY
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:RUJA. Repositorio Institucional de la Producción Científica de la Universidad de Jaén
instname:Universidad de Jaén
instname_str Universidad de Jaén
reponame_str RUJA. Repositorio Institucional de la Producción Científica de la Universidad de Jaén
collection RUJA. Repositorio Institucional de la Producción Científica de la Universidad de Jaén
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869414547334365184
score 15,81155

Registros relacionados