Deconstructing Higgins: gender bias in the Pygmalion phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Despite considerable empirical evidence to support the existence of the Pygmalion effect, studies that focus on the role of gender within this phenomenon have produced varied results. Whereas the research has consistently demonstrated the Pygmalion effect with male leaders, less research evidence exists to support this phenomenon among female leaders. This paper aims to present a conceptual framework for understanding the potential role gender can play in the Pygmalion effect and why women may face obstacles in their efforts to serve as Pygmalion leaders. Research propositions are presented with the intent of guiding future research in this area. Design/methodology/approach For the purpose of this theoretical paper, elements of the sociological, structural and psychological perspectives are drawn to present an understanding of the potential influence a leader’s gender has on the facilitation of the Pygmalion effect. A brief background to the Pygmalion effect is first provided followed by research related to this phenomenon. Then the underlying elements of the Pygmalion effect are revisited and attention is drawn to those factors affecting subordinate receptiveness to leader influence. Following that, these ideas are integrated with gender-based research to present the theoretical framework and research propositions. Findings This paper’s framework offers a fuller understanding of the role of a leader’s gender in facilitating the Pygmalion effect by identifying factors that can influence subordinate perceptions of leader efforts. Gender-based cues influence subordinate perceptions of leader expertise and power. In turn, this will influence subordinate receptiveness to leader elicited expectations and supportive behaviors. Practical implications The theoretical framework of this paper suggests that under certain conditions, gender differences can impact subordinate receptiveness to leader behaviors and performance expectations. Managers need to be aware of the gendered-nature of the work context and how it can influence subordinate perceptions of leaders. Otherwise, gender-based cues can unwittingly undermine women who endeavor to elevate follower self-efficacy beliefs. Social implications Stereotypes regarding women in managerial roles can undermine the capacity of women to effectively mentor and inspire others. These biases must be explicitly confronted and challenged. Moreover, given the global nature of the workforce it is critical to understand how national cultures can differ in their attitudes toward women in management in ways that can impede the ability of a woman to facilitate this transformative process. Originality/value The theoretical framework of this paper broadens the understanding of gender differences in the Pygmalion effect. This paper attempts to explain the lack of consistent findings for women who attempted to serve as Pygmalion leaders. It is asserted that rather than a leader’s gender, it is gender-based contextual cues that influence the leader’s capacity to trigger the Pygmalion effect. Thus far, no systematic effort has been made to identify the conditions under which subordinates are receptive to the influence of Pygmalion male or female leader expectations and behaviors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".