↓ Skip to main content

Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
4 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
228 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
552 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype.
Published in
Journal of Applied Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.1037/a0022133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle K. Ryan, S. Alexander Haslam, Mette D. Hersby, Renata Bongiorno

Abstract

The "think manager-think male" (TMTM) association underlies many gender inequalities in the workplace. However, research into the "glass cliff" has demonstrated that the suitability of male and female managers varies as a function of company performance such that in times of poor performance people may "think female" (Ryan & Haslam, 2005, 2007). Three studies examined gender and managerial stereotypes in the context of companies that are doing well or doing badly. Study 1 reproduced TMTM associations for descriptions of managers of successful companies but demonstrated a reversal for managers of unsuccessful companies. Study 2 examined the prescriptive nature of these stereotypes. No TMTM relationship was found for ideal managers of successful companies, but ideal managers of unsuccessful companies were associated with the female stereotype. Study 3 suggested that women may be favored in times of poor performance, not because they are expected to improve the situation, but because they are seen to be good people managers and can take the blame for organizational failure. Together, the studies illustrate the importance of context as a moderator of the TMTM association. Practical and theoretical implications for gender discrimination in the workplace are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 552 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 <1%
United States 4 <1%
France 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 535 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 119 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 107 19%
Student > Bachelor 65 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 55 10%
Researcher 31 6%
Other 84 15%
Unknown 91 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 197 36%
Business, Management and Accounting 148 27%
Social Sciences 51 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 16 3%
Arts and Humanities 14 3%
Other 26 5%
Unknown 100 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2022.
All research outputs
#251,961
of 22,203,123 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Psychology
#90
of 3,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,062
of 140,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Psychology
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,203,123 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 140,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.