On the psychological barriers to the workplace: when and why metastereotyping undermines employability beliefs of women and ethnic minorities.

Metastereotyping and Employability Beliefs

Specifically, we reasoned that because metastereotypes are often negative ( Vorauer et al., 1998 ), are activated when one contemplates intergroup encounters ( Vorauer et al., 2000 ), and engender feelings of rejection ( Gordijn & Boven, 2009 ; see also Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002 ); one might then expect metastereotypes to undermine perceived prospects of obtaining employment in a society dominated by the powerful outgroup. Because metastereotypes undermine stigmatized individual’s sense of self-worth ( Gordijn & Boven, 2009 ) we reasoned this negative self-evaluation might be the main reason why, and mechanism through which, negative metastereotypes reduce employability beliefs (see also Branscombe et al., 1999 ; Schmitt, Branscombe, Kobrynowicz, & Owen, 2002 ; Dooley & Prause, 1997 ; Ellis & Taylor, 1983 ; Gardner & Pierce, 1998 ).

Of course, people’s attitudes and perceptions of their chances of gaining employment can also depend on the belief that one has got the right qualities to obtain work in the first place. Thus, to the extent that an awareness of negative metastereotypes challenge a positive orientation toward the self, and this momentary downward fluctuation in self-view lowers their expectations of gaining employment, we reasoned that such an effect would be particularly visible among those members whose dispositional self-esteem is high (rather than low) to begin with.

Although those who are dispositionally high in self-esteem are more likely to be approach oriented and have better coping resources than those who are dispositionally low in self-esteem ( Cohen & McKay, 1984 ; see also Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003 ; Crocker & Wolfe, 2001 ) we reasoned this buffer may be applicable only in instances where such members feel able to control events that affect them ( Baumeister, 2005 ; Gordijn & Boven, 2009 ; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004 ). Negative metastereotypes (outgroup’s opinions of the ingroup) occur largely outside of members’ sphere of control and therefore unlikely that dispositionally high self-esteem group members would feel able to directly control the possibility that a potential job-application would (not) be evaluated via the lens of ingroup stereotypes. That is, people who are dispositionally high in self-esteem may evaluate their employability prospects based not only on an awareness of their personal qualities (controllable events) but also their undervalued social identity (less controllable event). To the extent that members feel confident about their personal qualities, but suspect that their undervalued social identity would pose an obstacle, it seems reasonable that such members would adjust their employability beliefs downward to reflect the pervasive negative regard the larger society holds of ‘people like them’ ( Festinger, 1957 ).

According to social identity theory ( Tajfel & Turner, 1986 ), people’s behavior and attitudes are influenced by their social rather than personal identity when their social group membership is salient, and activating metastereotype is likely to increase the salience of group members’ social identity ( Shelton, Richeson, & Vorauer, 2006 ). Consequently, it is unlikely that those who ordinarily hold high opinions about their personal attributes would have the protection which a sense of their personal qualities affords them. In other words, such group members may hold the suspicion that they would be evaluated by the dominant outgroup on the basis of ingroup stereotypes rather than their personal abilities. Because of this, we expected the undermining effect of metastereotyping on employability beliefs that is explained by state self-esteem to be particularly pronounced among those group members whose dispositional self-esteem is high to begin with.

In contrast, those whose dispositional self-esteem is low to begin with generally hold negative views about their self compared to those whose dispositional self-esteem is high. To the extent that focusing on negative metastereotypes increases the salience of their social identity, it seems likely that such external devaluation would match the pessimistic self-regard of those individuals whose dispositional self-esteem is low. For this reason, we do not expect that employability beliefs of such individuals would visibly fluctuate to the same degree as one might expect among those whose dispositional self-esteem is high.

In sum, activating negative metastereotypes should lower employability beliefs, and this effect should be mediated by deficits in state self-esteem (Hypothesis 1). We also expect this mediated effect to be particularly visible among those whose dispositional self-esteem is high but not low (Hypothesis 2). We tested these predictions in two studies using two historically disadvantaged groups: Women (Study 1) and ethnic minorities (Study 2) in Britain (see Branscombe, 1998 ; Crosby, 1982 ; Heath & Cheung, 2007 ).

Materials and procedure

Participants were told the study was interested in attitudes and perceptions that people in British society have about one another. They were asked to complete a measure of dispositional self-esteem using Rosenberg’s 10-item global self-esteem scale: for example, I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others . Responses on this scale were obtained on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree , 6 = strongly agree ; α = .88). High values on this scale indicate high levels of self-esteem.

Next, the negativity of participants’ metastereotype awareness was measured using an item adapted from Owuamalam, Tarrant, Farrow, and Zagefka (2013) : The impressions that men hold about women in this society are generally . . . (1 = very negative to 6 = very positive ). This scale was reverse coded so that higher scores meant greater negative metastereotyping.

Participants then completed a measure of state self-esteem using the single-item self-esteem scale previously developed and used by Robins, Hendin, and Trzesniewski (2001) : At the moment I have high self-esteem (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree ). Robins et al. (2001) have shown that this item has a strong convergent validity with Rosenberg’s global self-esteem scale.

Finally, participants completed a three-item measure of employability beliefs adapted from Berntson and Marklund (2007) . Items were As a woman, I believe I could get a job in this society without problems ; Women like me could easily find a job in this society ; and My identity as a woman makes it easy for me to get a job (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree ; α = .75). They were subsequently debriefed and thanked.

Moderating role of dispositional self-esteem

To examine the second hypothesis that the indirect relationship between metastereotype negativity and employability beliefs that was explained by deficits in state self-esteem is mostly evident for those people with high dispositional self-esteem, we computed a conditional indirect effect analysis, by interacting the path from state self-esteem to employability beliefs with dispositional self-esteem (see Figure 1 ). In this analysis we sought to demonstrate that the indirect effect of metastereotype negativity on employability belief was particularly evident for those individuals who are high (rather than low ) in dispositional self-esteem. Following Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) , a conditional indirect effect is established if the upper and lower limits of a bootstrapped 95% CI for the indirect effect of metastereotyping on employability beliefs via state self-esteem at high (+1 SD above mean) or low (−1 SD below mean) levels of dispositional self-esteem do not contain zero. All predictors were mean centered before analysis ( Aiken & West, 1991 ).

In line with Hypothesis 2, results revealed a negative relationship between metastereotype negativity and employability that is explained by deficits in state self-esteem but only among those women whose dispositional self-esteem was high to begin with and not for those who dispositional self-esteem was low (see Table 3 ).

Discussion

Supporting our first hypothesis, we demonstrated that metastereotype negativity was associated with lower employability beliefs, and this was attributable to reduction in state self-esteem. We also showed that this indirect effect was visible only among those group members whose dispositional self-esteem was high (Hypothesis 2). Because this study was correlational, we conducted a follow-up study in which negative metastereotyping was experimentally manipulated so as to enable a causal interpretation of the trends reported in the current study. We also aimed to enhance the generalizability of the patterns shown in this study to other disadvantaged groups by using a different intergroup context to the one reported in the current study.

Materials and procedure

As in Study 1, we measured dispositional self-esteem using Rosenberg’s 10-item global self-esteem scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree ; α = .87). Next, we manipulated metastereotype valence using the procedure developed by Branscombe (1998 ; see also Owuamalam & Zagefka, 2011 ). In one condition participants were instructed to reflect on the negative impressions that native white British people hold of ethnic minorities in this society (negative metastereotype condition), while in another participants were instructed to think about the positive impressions that native British people hold about ethnic minorities (positive metastereotype condition). A third condition was also included in which participants did not receive any metastereotype related instruction (control condition). We did not make any specific predictions regarding the effect of positive metastereotyping and wanted only to explore whether or not it has any potential positive effect on our outcome (compared to the baseline condition)—particularly because such stereotypes pose little (if at all any) concern for group members.

Following the manipulation of metastereotype valence, participants then completed the same state self-esteem measure used in Study 1 (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree ). Finally, they completed the same measure of employability beliefs as before, but adapted to reflect the current intergroup context (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree ; α = .78). On completion, participants were debriefed and thanked.

Results

Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 . Unlike in Study 1, the effect of metastereotyping on employability beliefs did not reach statistical significance, F (2, 53) = 1.93, p = .16, η 2 = .07, although the pattern was consistent with our expectations (negative metastereotype condition, M = 3.90, SD = 0.70; control condition, M = 4.31, SD = 0.98; and positive metastereotype condition, M = 4.40, SD = 0.86).

One downside of a causal approach to establishing a mediated effect is the requirement for the relationship between the focal predictor and the outcome to be significant. This is not a requirement in the test of the indirect effect proposed by Preacher et al. (2007 ; see also Hayes, 2009 ). Therefore, despite the lack of a significant main effect of metastereotyping on employability belief in the current study, we again bootstrapped the predicted indirect effect. If negative metastereotyping does undermine employability beliefs via its negative effect on state self-esteem, then this effect should be noticeable in the negative metastereotype condition relative to both the positive metastereotype and control conditions. For this reason we dummy coded the effect attributable to negative metastereotyping such that Negative metastereotyping = 2, positive metastereotyping = −1 and control = −1. Further, we explored whether or not positive metastereotyping has any beneficial effect on employability beliefs compared to a control condition in which both valence of the metastereotypes are absent using the following dummy codes: Positive metastereotyping = 1, control = −1, negative metastereotyping = 0 (zero). This coding allows for a contrast between positive metastereotyping and control.

Full model results for the indirect effect of metastereotyping on employability beliefs are presented in Table 2 . As expected, group members who activated negative metastereotypes reported reduced employability beliefs and this effect was, again, attributable to a reduction in state self-esteem (95% CI: LL = −.185, UL = .023). Group members’ employability beliefs showed no measureable fluctuation when the comparison was between those who activated positive metastereotypes and those in the control condition (95% CI: LL = −.217, UL = .013). Because of this, we focused subsequent analysis on the effects of negative metastereotyping.

Moderating role of dispositional self-esteem

Corroborating the patterns of relationships in Study 1, results from a conditional process analysis showed, in line with expectation, that negative metastereotyping lowered employability beliefs via state self-esteem (see Table 2 ): but again, only for those group members whose dispositional self-esteem was high rather than low (see Table 3 ).

Discussion

Experimental evidence from the current study clearly corroborates the patterns we showed in Study 1. Importantly, both studies provide clear support for the two central predictions: Revealing that activating negative metastereotypes undermines employability beliefs via their negative effect on state self-esteem, and only for members whose dispositional self-esteem was high.