The Effects of Perceived Professor Competence, Warmth, and Gender on Students’ Likelihood to Register for a Course
Nina Nesdoly, Christine Tulk, & Janet Mantler, University of Ottawa
The role of competence in ratings of professors has been explored, but there is far less evidence that female professors are rated poorly if their behaviour is incongruous with female stereotypes of warmth. The present research examined whether student’s likelihood to take a course with a male or female professor was affected by different expectations of professors based on gender stereotypes. Students (n = 503) from a Canadian university participated in an experimental vignette survey in which they were randomly assigned to view a fictitious online review about a professor that varied by professor gender, overall quality score, and by whether or not the professor was described as caring. Students responded to items assessing their likelihood to take a course with the professor, perceived competence and warmth of the professor, and to items regarding their own gender bias. There was an interaction between professor gender, student gender, competence, and warmth. When perceived competence was low, female professors who were not warm were rated less favourably than male professors by male students. Gender bias was negatively associated with the likelihood to take a course with a female professor. These results indicate that female professors may be held to a higher standard of warmth relative to male professors by some male students.
And the award goes to… External status as a driver of cumulative advantage
Molly Contini, University of Guelph
This research aims to extend our understanding of whether receiving an award can effect long-term future employee career opportunities and productivity. Drawing upon the theory of cumulative advantage, we examine if winning an award is associated with career outcomes (i.e., opportunities and productivity) irrespective of productivity levels prior to receiving the designation. To address potential confounds that may account for career differences between award winners and non-winners, we used several strategies: We examined an award that is not determined based on individual productivity and we used a control group that closely resembled the treatment group. The independence of award allocation was tested and confirmed with a multilevel logistic regression. Award winners and non-winners were matched on age, previous opportunity and productivity statistics until the point of the winner winning the award and then post-win outcomes were compared. Overall, our results indicated some evidence for the cumulative advantage hypothesis. Specifically, award winners were found to receive more opportunities than non-winners, however, winners were not found to be more productive than non-winners.
Development of a State Regulatory Focus Scale
Anna Godollei, University of Waterloo
It is theorized that regulatory focus varies both between- and within-individuals. Yet no direct evidence corroborates whether and to what extent regulatory focus fluctuates within-individuals. To address this gap, we developed the State Regulatory Focus Scale and present evidence for the factor structure, reliability, time invariance, and validity of our new measure.
The Effect of a Regulatory Focus Induction on Self-Reported State Regulatory Focus
Anna Godollei, University of Waterloo
Rationale: Regulatory focus theory differentiates between achievement-seeking (promotion) and loss-avoiding (prevention) regulation. Regulatory focus is theorized to vary both between-people (individuals consistently adopt certain regulatory foci) and within-person (individuals fluctuate in their regulatory focus over time). To date, the presence of within-person fluctuations in regulatory focus has been inferred from the behavioral consequences of manipulations intended to induce regulatory focus. However, past research has not provided direct evidence (i.e., manipulation checks) that regulatory focus manipulations result in the intended effect on the underlying construct. Using a newly constructed State Regulatory Focus scale we test whether a commonly used regulatory focus manipulation effects self-reported state regulatory focus.
Methods: 119 participants were randomly assigned to either a promotion induction (writing about ideals), prevention induction (writing about oughts), or control (writing about musical preferences). After the induction, participants self-reported their state regulatory focus.
Results: Controlling for prevention focus, participants who wrote about their ideals reported higher promotion focus (but not higher prevention focus) than those who wrote about musical preferences, and oughts. Controlling for promotion focus, participants who wrote about their oughts reported higher prevention focus (but not higher promotion focus) than those who wrote musical preferences, and ideals.
Conclusion: The present research validates our State Regulatory Focus scale, and lends support for a commonly used regulatory focus induction.
Impact: This study is part of a larger program of research aimed at training employees to self-regulate their regulatory focus in order to optimize their motivational mindset to suit their various work demands.
Where do implicit followership theories come from? An investigation of antecedents
Rochelle Evans, University of Waterloo
People vary in their beliefs about typical and ideal followers; some think followers are loyal, others anticipate enthusiasm, and still others view them as incompetent. Research has shown that these beliefs are consequential as they guide people’s actions and interactions. However, we know relatively little about where these beliefs come from. Our introductory-level study reveals that people’s views of followers are both stable and dynamic. More agreeable individuals tend to consistently have more positive views of followers, whereas individuals who focus on how they are distinct from others (i.e., those higher on independent identity) tend to consistently have more negative views of followers. Further, these relationships did not differ for typical versus ideal follower beliefs.
