2002
DOI: 10.1177/01467202028007005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reexamining the Effects of Solo Status for Women and Men

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
16
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On the whole, this work suggests that members of low status groups suffer greater costs from solo status compared with members of high status groups (Cohen & Swim, 1995;Floge & Merrill, 1986;Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2002abut see Craig & Rand, 1998Fuegen & Biernat, 2002). What might account for the apparent discrepancy between this extant work and the present results?…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…On the whole, this work suggests that members of low status groups suffer greater costs from solo status compared with members of high status groups (Cohen & Swim, 1995;Floge & Merrill, 1986;Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2002abut see Craig & Rand, 1998Fuegen & Biernat, 2002). What might account for the apparent discrepancy between this extant work and the present results?…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…These efforts must be supplemented with strategies meant to dispel stereotypes or buffer their effects. Placing an emphasis on commonalities rather than differences is one technique used to attenuate the debilitating effects of stereotype threat (Rosenthal & Crisp, 2006) and solo status (Fuegen & Biernat, 2002) for women within the context of a mathematical exercise. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that due to specific psychological resources, some women cope better than others in threatening intellectual environments (Inzlight et al, 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research on token, or solo, status has found that being in the numerical minority can lead to detrimental outcomes (e.g., Cohen & Swim, 1995;Fuegen & Biernat, 2002;Kanter, 1977;Niemann & Dovidio, 1998;Sackett, DuBois, & Noe, 1991;Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003;Yoder, Aniakudo, & Berendsen, 2002;Yoder et al, 1996). 1 Kanter (1977) suggested that individuals belonging to the numerical minority group are perceptually salient and thus receive disproportionate amounts of attention and scrutiny, which often result in group polarization and assimilation to negative stereotypic expectations.…”
Section: Threatening Intellectual Environmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%