Talk:Role congruity theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Role congruity theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Gender Double Bind Addition

I believe that the gender double bind should also be included within the role congruity theory page. As previously mentioned in this wiki post, women in leadership experience prejudice when placed in leadership roles because when people think “leader” they do not think “female”. To better explain this association, I would like to include a section explaining more about the gender double bind women experience--where the demands of being seen as a competent leader conflict with the demands associated with female gender roles--and what kind of biases are associated with this bind.

The proposed additions include a section explaining the gender double bind and how role congruity theory is the main explanation for it, as well as another section detailing the aspects women experience within the workplace associated from it (extreme perceptions,higher standards of competency, and a conflict over being viewed as competent or well-liked.)

SRLuther (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many sections about women

This article implies this may occur for any group/role, but the only implications and elaborations given are about women, and nearly 70% of the "see also" articles are specifically about gender studies. Does the range of implications/sections accurately represent the purview of the effect, or should they be diversified? Maybe some gender studies-specific ones removed and other ones introduced? 99.238.105.209 (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Stereotype fit hypothesis into Role congruity theory. I think that there is a broad overlap, these are largely the same idea. Brinerat (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brinerat I would agree that they seem to be the same topic, but why specifically stereotype fit into role congruity? --Xurizuri (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xurizuri: I don’t actually remember my line of thought from 4 months ago, but Role congruity theory seems to have more sources. --Brinerat (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah look that's fair --Xurizuri (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Systems of power

I believe that the Role congruity theory could also be potentially used for other systems of power, such as race, age, sexuality and class. Research done in the latest years has started to talk about it as a factor for political and other involvement. Adding this to the article could make it even more complete. Luisatolda (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, this article should be expanded. I'd say the most pressing issues are the lack of discussion of race, and that it is currently exclusively discussing work and politics. At the very least, this theory has also been discussed in the context of education. Obviously, non-American information would also be good, but a lot of this research does come out of the US so that may be difficult. Low-hanging fruit first. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The merge (see above) has at least partially addressed this, but I agree that the discourse is currently over-weighted to gender/sex - based discrimination, for understandable historical reasons. Klbrain (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]