The impact of disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes and low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling on perceived stereotype threat, and the effect of this threat on memory
task performance, job engagement and job performance of older employees.
Idske Douwenga 11067187 Master Thesis
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication Master Corporate Communication Supervisor: Anne Kroon
02-02-2018 8206 words
Abstract
In organizational contexts, older employees often perceive stereotype threat. They actively monitor whether their work environment negatively stereotypes them based on age. Relying on the Stereotype Content Model and Social Identity Theory, this study examined the impact of disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes and low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling on older employees’ perceived stereotype threat and memory task performance. To this end I used corporate storytelling as a threat-inhibiting communication tool. By means of a 2 x 2 experiment, I conclude that perceived threat and memory task performance is not impacted by disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes or low (vs. high) age salience. Additionally, the relationship between stereotypes in corporate storytelling and stereotype threat is not moderated by age salience. However, stereotype threat does lead to lower levels of job engagement and performance. Furthermore, job engagement partially mediates the relationship between stereotype threat and job performance. Future research should further explore the use of corporate storytelling as a stereotype threat-inhibiting communication method.
Keywords: stereotype content model, social identity theory, corporate storytelling, age salience, stereotype threat, job engagement, job performance, older employees
Telling a story: Older employees and stereotype threat
The ageing society in the Netherlands is causing a growth of older individuals in the population relative to younger individuals (Statistics Netherlands, 2017). Social systems are pressured due to the growing number of retirees. At the current rate, the 1:1 ratio of workers to non-workers in 2017 will be at 0.8:1 in 2040 (Statistics Netherlands, 2017). Governments are systematically and incrementally increasing the retirement age to relieve this pressure. The working population will support the growing group of retirees, resulting in a prolonged
working life (Gruber & Wise, 2005). This poses a new grand challenge however: “[p]olicy changes […] may increase the hiring and retention of older workers, but they will not necessarily engage or motivate older workers” (Kulik, Ryan, Harper, & George, 2014, p. 932).
An engaging culture between an organization and its staff, results in staff that is more attentive, integrated, focused (He, Zhu, & Zheng, 2014), healthier, safer and less likely to leave (Shuck & Wollard, 2009; Woocheol, 2017). If disengagement leads to turnover, solely increasing the retirement age can turn into a vicious circle, leaving the ageing population problem unresolved. Engagement has also been linked to higher employee performance (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; Wendsche & Lohmann-Haislah, 2017). For instance, engaged employees are more willing to engage in discretionary efforts. This allows for the achievement of targeted outcomes coming forth from the staff such as high productivity and strong profits (Shuck & Wollard, 2009). Therefore, it is vital for
organizations to be aware of the factors foregoing employee engagement and performance. One of these known antecedents is stereotype threat (Kulik, Perera, & Cregan, 2016; Walton, Murphy, & Ryan, 2015). In which members of any group are concerned about being evaluated or treated negatively based on the negative stereotypes of this group (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Stereotypes about older adults exist (Krings, Sczesny & Kluge, 2011;
Posthuma & Campion, 2009), likely inducing stereotype threat for this age-group. For example, in comparison to younger employees, they are generally perceived as warm (e.g., reliable and trustworthy). However, at the same time they are also seen as incompetent (e.g., unproductive and untrainable) (Cuddy, Norton & Fiske, 2005). Age salience in social context might make these stereotypes more pronounced. Through social context, older age can manifest (Lin, Ankudowich, & Ebner, 2017) evoking related stereotypical beliefs. Older adults scan their environment for subtle cues that signal these stereotypical beliefs (Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009; Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008).
Organizations can likely reduce, remove or change these cues through corporate communication, because it can transmit stereotypes and reflect inter-organisational beliefs (Van Selm & Van der Heijden, 2014). An effective form of corporate communication for internally communicating with employees is corporate storytelling (Forman, 2013). It is the process of using narration within the organization regarding its people, the organization, the past, visions of the future, social bonding and work itself to effectively engage with
colleagues (Kaye, 1995; Wilkins, 1978; Witherspoon, 1997). Stories are clearly understood representations of socialization and internalization, and are relatively easy to implement in organizations (Swap, Leonard, Shields, & Abrams, 2001). I therefore expect that through communicating disconfirming stereotypes (e.g., competency) rather than confirming stereotypes (e.g., incompetency), corporate storytelling can be an effective tool that organizations can employ to reduce stereotype threat.
In the literature, other practical measures for reducing stereotype threat in
organizations are mentioned, such as adopting high performance - and mature-age practices (Kulik et al., 2016). However, changing such organizational contextual cues is likely more challenging than telling narratives. This study can therefore potentially offer organizations a more achievable solution to increase their employees’ engagement and performance. This
study also contributes to a solution for a societal problem. In other words, engaged older employees willing and able to work to their retirement age. This will reduce the pressure on workers to sustain the growing group of retirees. Additionally, it increases job performance, offering organizations a better chance at survival in competitive markets.
In addition to these practical contributions, this study offers significant theoretical insights. Recent, literature has explored the benefits of corporate storytelling. Which for example entails creating engagement (Gill, 2014) or transferring organizational values (Martin, 2016). Other studies explored the effect of narratives on perceived stereotype threat (Bikmen, 2015), and perceived stereotype threat of older employees in organizations (Kulik et al., 2016). However, these studies lack a framework for assessing the effect of exposure to stories with stereotypical beliefs on stereotype threat. This study does include such a framework. Additionally, this study is one of the few to determine the effects of stereotype activation of story characters, and a stories’ social context on cognitive performance (Appel, 2011). Hence, this study offers new insights into the use of corporate storytelling in
organizational contexts. I aim to answer the following research question:
RQ: What is the role of exposure to disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes and low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling in the experience of stereotype threat among older employees, and does stereotype threat affect employees’ engagement and performance?
To gain an understanding of the antecedents and outcomes of perceived stereotype threat of older employees a 2x2 factorial experiment will be conducted under older employees. The experiment will be set up by drawing on literature on corporate storytelling, the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), media priming, stereotype threat, and the Social Identity Theory (SIT).
Theoretical framework
First, the underlying mechanisms that make corporate storytelling an effective communication tool are examined. Second, insights from the SCM are consulted to find out more about existing stereotypes of older employees. Third, media priming literature is examined, since this mechanism will likely activate the stereotypes within corporate stories. Fourth, literature on stereotype threat is explored to understand the working of this mechanism. Fifth, insights of the SIT are used to formulate an expectation of the effects of age salience. Lastly, literature on the relationship between stereotype threat, engagement and performance is examined.
Corporate storytelling
Stories are ubiquitous in organizations (Boje, 1991). Corporate storytelling is defined as the process of developing and delivering an organizations’ message by using narration about people, the organization, the past, visions of the future, social bonding and work itself to create a new point-of-view or reinforces an opinion or behaviour using narration from within the organisation relating to its people, practices, policies and visions to effectively engage with the staff (Kaye, 1995; Wilkins, 1978; Witherspoon, 1997). Stories are promising communication tools. They convey meaning, carry symbolic information, enhance recollection, commitment (Sinclair, 2005), and have learning potential due to their
memorability (Swap et al., 2001). Communication that elicits more memorable information is more useful because individuals are more likely to act upon this information rather than unconscious information. Corporate storytelling is therefore an effective manner to give weight and guide behaviour, since they are more vivid, engaging and relatable to personal experience in comparison to rules or directives (Swap et al., 2001). As a result, stories are more memorable. Hence, since corporate storytelling is memorable because of its vividness
and therefore likely to guide behaviour, I expect that it can be an effective communication tool to convey disconfirming stereotypes of older employees to this group.
Stereotypes of older employees
Next, relying on the SCM it is discussed what these stereotypical beliefs of older employees are. Stereotypes are defined as cognitive structures that store beliefs and expectations about the characteristics of social group members (Cuddy & Fiske, 2002). The SCM gives an insight into the sort of stereotypical perceptions one can have. The model implies that stereotypical perceptions associated with any social group in society are organized by two dimensions, warmth (warmth versus cold) and competence (competence versus
incompetence) (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Warmth is the degree to which a social group is regarded as likable, sincere, warm, good-natured and friendly, and competence is the degree to which a social group is characterized as efficient, capable, intelligent and
competent. Using these dimensions in the judgements of social groups, offer schemata that helps people make evaluations and decisions without using too much cognitive energy and categorizes their social world (Cuddy et al., 2011). Whereas, some social groups are assessed as unambivalently positive (i.e., high on both dimensions), most social groups receive mixed stereotypes (i.e., relatively low on one dimension, relatively high on one dimension) as seen with older employees (Krings et al., 2011). For instance, older employees are generally regarded as committed, loyal, reliable and trustworthy colleagues (i.e., high in warmth traits). Nevertheless, individuals also believe that as employees age, they become less efficient, productive, adaptive to change, trainable, and capable of working with new technology (i.e., low in competence traits) (Cuddy et al., 2005; Krings et al., 2011; Posthuma & Campion, 2009; Van Dalen, Henkens, & Schippers, 2010). Yet, these stereotypes largely contradict the empirical evidence of older employees’ actual capabilities and traits (Ng & Feldman, 2008). This study focuses on the competence dimension of the SCM as I expect that
especially low competence perceptions will trigger the experience of stereotype threat. Stereotype threat is elicited in situations in which people are confronted with negative stereotypical beliefs about one’s identity-group (Walton et al., 2015). This is especially the case for older employees who when compared to younger employees, are perceived as incompetent. As older employees are perceived as positive on the warmth dimension (i.e., high in warm traits), this trait dimension is not likely to increase stereotype threat.
Stereotype activation and stereotype threat
The aforementioned stereotypes of the competence dimension of the SCM are used to explore if disconfirming (i.e., competency (versus confirming; i.e., incompetency) stereotypes
activated in corporate storytelling can reduce stereotype threat. Chronic factors and situational, peripheral cues can activate stereotypical association in memory (Kunda & Spencer, 2003), and affect subsequent judgement and behaviour (Ewoldsen, Roskos-Ewoldsen, & Carpentier, 2009). This “activation-effect” is referred to as media priming. For example, a study on story priming showed that due to the activation of stereotypical
associations in memory regarding a stupidly acting soccer hooligan, participants performed worse on a knowledge test than participants exposed to a story with no reference to one’s intellectual ability (Appel, 2011). Additionally, a study on media priming indicates that gender-stereotypical commercials activated female stereotypes among this group evoking stereotype threat in comparison to those exposed to a disconfirming-stereotypical commercial (Davies, Spencer, Quinn, & Gerhardstein, 2002). This is in accordance with prior studies, which indicate that negative stereotypes cause stereotype threat (Walton et al., 2015). On the other hand, positive stereotypes reduce this threat (Hess, Auman, Colcombe, & Rahhal, 2003). Stereotype threat describes the situation in which members of any stereotype group are concerned about being evaluated or treated negatively based on a negative stereotype that exists about one’s group (Steele & Aronson, 1995). However, it is only evoked if an
individual feels they belong to the stereotyped group. In organizational contexts, individuals actively monitor for cues signifying whether they are likely to be judged with regards to the negative stereotypes that exist about the social group they belong to (Walton et al., 2015). In some organizational contexts, older employees constantly experience age stereotyping cues (Lamont, Swift, & Abrams, 2015; Kalokerinos, Hippel, & Zacher, 2014). Stereotype threat can be reduced by changing, removing or replacing these cues (Walton et al., 2015).
Considering that studies suggest that story priming can activate stereotypical associations and confirming (vs. disconfirming) stereotypical media priming can activate stereotypical
associations in memory and affect stereotype threat, I expect that disconfirming (versus confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling is an effective means to replace
organizational age stereotyping cues. Since, it likely undermines held negative stereotypical beliefs about one’s own-age group when compared to confirming stereotypes in corporate storytelling.
H1: Exposure to disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling negatively affects the perceived stereotype threat of older employees.
Social identity and age salience
It is assumed that not only disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes, but also age salience in corporate storytelling, affects the perceived stereotype threat of older employees. To
understand the impact of age salience, this study relies on the SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Individuals possess multiple characteristics and can therefore be categorized in different social groups (e.g., male or female, young or old) (Zarate & Smith, 1990; Fiske & Ruscher, 1989). Individuals categorize themselves and others to make sense of their social environment and define themselves in relation to others (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), resulting into the
creation of a social identity as explained by SIT (Tajfel et al., 1971; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This theory from social psychology has since been applied to organizational contexts
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Cornelissen et al., 2007; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and suggests that the way individuals perceive themselves encompasses not solely a personal identity (e.g., one’s traits, the ‘I’), but also a social identity (e.g., the groups one belongs to, the ‘We’) (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Van Dick et al., 2004). Thus, according to the SIT, individuals categorize their social worlds into groups, and in that process, categorize themselves into some of those groups.
The social identity of an individual can differ depending on the social context. Individuals have ‘situational selves’, which means that the category individuals belong to changes depending on which of the social categories, such as age, is made salient (Fiske, 1998; Pettigrew, 1981). It is likely that when age salience is enhanced for older employees, it contributes to a greater perceived similarity between themselves and their own-age group (Lin et al., 2017). Social context influences how individuals’ stereotypes of a certain group impact their perceptions and behaviours. For example, older adults are more likely to evaluate traits that they perceive as typical for their own-age group as more typical for themselves. From a young age, children acquire stereotypes of older individuals (Montepare & Zebrowitz, 2002) and it is notable that once these children grow up themselves, they maintain these stereotypes rather than change them (Levy, 2003). This is in accordance with a study conducted in the Netherlands that implies that both younger and older adults hold the same stereotypical beliefs about older individuals in society (Versteegh & Westerhof, 2007). I assume that narrative priming contributes to this effect of age salience on stereotype threat. Since, as
aforementioned certain cues can activate stereotypical associations in memory and therefore affect subsequent behaviour (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009). Hence, if through corporate storytelling mental structures related to ‘older age’ are primed, corresponding stereotypical beliefs about this age-group can become activated.
corporate story about an older character in which an age is given, their social identity of being an older adult is activated, awakening stereotypical beliefs about their own-age group and therefore potentially increasing the extent to which they perceive stereotype threat.
H2: Exposure to low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling negatively affects the perceived stereotype threat of older employees.
The moderation effect of age salience
As mentioned above, media priming of stereotypes can activate mental structures in memory (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009), and cause stereotype threat (Davies et al., 2002). Hence, stereotypes in corporate storytelling likely activate related stereotypical beliefs. I expect that when a character is portrayed as old, the same mechanism is applicable and associated stereotypical beliefs about this age are evoked. Drawing from the SIT, employees who categorize themselves as ‘being old’ will likely reflect these stereotypical beliefs to their own identity. Because this theory suggests that older adults perceive similarities in traits between themselves and their own-age group (Lin et al., 2017). Therefore, these employees will
potentially identify more with the portrayed character. Employees can also assimilate with the portrayed character (Appel, 2011). This might cause larger assimilation effects with the portrayed character and thus the presented stereotypical beliefs. High age salience will most likely activate negative stereotypical beliefs on the competence dimension of the SCM (i.e., incompetency), since older adults hold the same stereotypical beliefs (Cuddy et al., 2005) about themselves as younger adults (Levy, 2003). Hence, because both media priming of confirming stereotypes, and the activation of negative stereotypical beliefs in memory as a result of high age salience, are prone to evoke stereotype threat, I expect that age salience will moderate the relationship between exposure to disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling and the perceived stereotype threat of older employees.
H3: Age salience moderates the relationship between exposure to disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling and perceived stereotype threat of older employees, such that the negative effect of disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotype on perceived stereotype threat will be more pronounced under the condition of low (vs. high) age salience.
Stereotype threat and memory task performance
Additionally, I will discuss the consequences of increased stereotype threat due to exposure of corporate stories embedded with disconfirming (versus confirming) stereotypes and low (vs. high) age salience. A literature review on stereotype threat in organizational contexts suggests that more than four hundred studies imply that stereotype threat negatively affects
individuals’ performance (Walton et al., 2015). Correspondingly, a review and meta-analysis of the effects of negative age-based stereotypes on stereotype threat and performance, also revealed significant effects (Lamont et al., 2015). In contrary, cues that remove stereotype threat, such as positive stereotypes (Hess et al., 2003) positively affect performance (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999, Steele & Aronson 1995). Stereotype threat creates a monitoring process to discover signs of performance failure and a physiological stress response. This process evokes a cycle of negative emotions, thoughts, and appraisal processes (e.g., “if I do poorly, will they think that people like me cannot do this”) (Schmader & Beilock, 2012). To manage these negative emotions and cognitive by-products coping mechanisms are activated (Inzlicht, Tullett, Legault, & Kang, 2011) in which individuals try to focus on the task at hand while they supress the monitoring process and emotional response (Schmader & Beilock, 2012). However, these mechanisms cost energy, and remove cognitive- and motivational resources from these tasks (Kang & Inzlicht, 2014), ultimately weakening the performance (Schmader & Beilock, 2012).
task (Kulik et al., 2016; Appel & Weber, 2017) because cultural beliefs exist about the negative effects of aging on memory (Hertzog, Lineweaver, & McGuire, 1999; Levy, 1996; Hess et al., 2003). Low competence stereotypes are particular important for understanding this effect. The dominant held stereotypical belief about older adults is their incompetence (Cuddy et al., 2005). This could pressure older employees even more to perform well if they strive to disconfirm this belief. Older employees underperform on this task when acute stereotype threat is induced (e.g., exposing them to stereotypes / emphasizing the task is a memory test) (Hess & Hinson, 2006). It is this stress response, evoked by stereotypical beliefs or age salience in corporate storytelling, that affects older employees to perform less. Hence, I assume that stereotype threat fully mediates the effects between disconfirming (versus confirming) stereotypes and low (vs. high) salience on a memory performance task of older employees.
H4: Perceived stereotype threat of older employees negatively affects memory task performance.
H5: Exposure to disconfirming (versus confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling is positively related to memory task performance through stereotype threat.
H6: Exposure to low (versus high) age salience in corporate storytelling is positively related to memory task performance through stereotype threat.
Stereotype threat, job engagement and job performance
The former paragraph focused on the acute impact of experiencing stereotype threat on short-term performance, as implied by Steele (1997). However, he also proposed that chronic experience of stereotype threat could lead to psychological disengagement in the performance domain. Engagement is connected to job performance (Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; Wendsche & Lohmann-Haislah, 2017). Engagement is described as a ‘positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Older employees perceive
stereotype threat at work (Lamont et al., 2015; Kalokerinos et al., 2014) and this can lead to disengagement (Kulik et al., 2016). Despite this clear relevance for organizational contexts stereotype threat has received less attention (Block, Koch, Liberman, Merriweather, & Roberson, 2011; Kalokerinos et al., 2014). The cognitive effort necessary to perform in situations that chronically produce stereotype threat is taxing and tiring (Kang & Inzlicht, 2014). It leads to a diminished confidence in one’s own abilities (Koch, Müller, & Sieverding, 2008), task interest (Smith, Sansone & White, 2007) and more negative assessments of their task experience (Adams, Garcia, Purdie-Vaughns, & Steele, 2006). This combination of declined self-confidence and enjoyment results in abated identification with performance achievements (Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). Less
identification is expressed through disengagement (Nussbaum & Steele, 2007; Woodcock, Hernandez, Estrada, & Schultz, 2012) because it allows employees to persevere in an environment that generates stereotype threat without further damaging their self-worth.
Hence, since stereotype threat causes a decline in self-confidence and enjoyment resulting in a abated identification with performance achievements expressed through lower levels of
engagement, I expect that exposure to stereotype threat decreases job engagement.
H7: Stereotype threat perceived by older employees will negatively affect older employees’ job engagement.
Job engagement is related to higher job performance (Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; Wendsche & Lohmann-Haislah, 2017). The positive emotions (e.g., happiness, joy and enthusiasm) linked to engagement can broaden an employees’ action repertoires, momentary thought and build personal resources (physical, intellectual, social and psychological), resulting in better perceived performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Likewise, engaged
employees are cognitively, emotionally and psychically attached when performing tasks (Simbula & Guglielmi, 2013). This results in employees who are more willing to engage in discretionary efforts, performing better (Schuck & Wollard, 2009; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Stereotype threat decreases job engagement (Kulik et al., 2016) and job performance (Lamont et al., 2015). Additionally, higher levels of engagement lead to higher levels of job performance (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; Wendsche &
Lohmann-Haislah, 2017). As job engagement leads to higher levels of job performance because the positive emotions job engagement consists of broaden an employees’ resources and action repertoires, I expect that job engagement positively affects job performance. Additionally, I expect that job engagement partially mediates the relationship between stereotype threat and job performance, since as aforementioned stereotype threat negatively impacts job engagement (Kulik et al., 2016) and performance (Walton et al., 2015).
H8: Job engagement positively affects job performance of older employees.
H9: Stereotype threat negatively affects job performance of older employees, through job engagement.
Method
Sample
The sample (N = 246) consisted of older employees obtained from a research panel provided by a Dutch organization (N = 84), and my own network which consisted of people contacted through Facebook, e-mail or WhatsApp messages and flyers handed out to train travellers (N = 162). The following sample procedure was used: random sampling from the panel and the snowball method for my own network. All received a link to the online survey. Prior research categorized older employees as 50 years of age and above (Henkens, 2005; McCann & Keaton, 2013; Van Dalen, Henkens, & Schippers, 2009), because from this age on it becomes more difficult to find work after discharge. Hence, only (a) respondents of ≥ 50 years of age and (b) who indicated to work at least eight hours per week were selected to participate in the experiment. An attention check question that was used to ensure participants filled in the surveymeticulously was failed by 19 respondents, resulting in a final sample of 151
participants. Participants were between 50 and 67 years of age (M = 56.96, SD = 3.99). Males represent 50,3% of the sample (N = 76). The highest level of education of most participants was either secondary vocational education (37.1%) or higher professional education (34.4%), followed by university (19.9%) and at last secondary education (8.6%). Approximately, participants worked 32.31 hours per week (SD = 9.46), with a range of 8 to 59 hours. Participants mostly worked in healthcare and welfare (26.0%), education and research (13.3%), industry (12.7%), and government and semi-government organizations (10.7%).
Procedure
Participants provided by the research panel received an incentive from the company whereas the other participants had a chance of winning a €20 bol.com gift card. All were told they would participate in a master graduate thesis on the effects of corporate stories. Participants
could partake in the experiment by entering the survey link that was made available through a flyer, e-mail, WhatsApp message or Facebook post. The 151 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. Prior to the exposure of the stimulus material, participants had to agree to the terms and conditions of the informed consent. Participants had an unlimited amount of time to read the material. The material was followed up by manipulation check questions. Then, participants answered items measuring stereotype threat. Subsequently, participants completed a memory task to measure task performance, and answered items measuring job performance and job engagement. Lastly, several demographic questions ended the experiment.
Experimental design
An online experiment was conducted, based on a 2 (level of stereotype [disconfirming vs. confirming x 2 (level of age salience [low-age salience vs. high-age salience]) factorial design, see Table 1 in Appendix 1. This research is not interested in comparing effects with corporate stories without stereotypes because this study revolves around removing and changing cues that evoke stereotype threat. Therefore, a control condition was not used. Four different versions of a corporate story were designed based on an origin story of an existing company to increase the external validity of this study. All five paragraphs were made completely identical in all four conditions, apart from added words to increase age salience (e.g., older, young, 57 years old) and the third paragraph that differed in the conveyed stereotype (disconfirming vs. confirming). The complete stimulus material can be found in Appendix 2.
Independent variables
Exposure to disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes in corporate stories. The level of competence stereotypes in corporate storytelling concerned the level of mastery of
traits are used to portray the incompetence stereotype of older employees (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011; Posthuma & Campion, 2009; Van Dalen et al., 2010). In the exposure to disconfirming stereotype in corporate stories condition, these traits were positively framed (i.e., as competent), such as: “is productive” and “is motivated to learn new skills”. In the confirming stereotype in corporate stories condition, older employees were negatively framed (i.e., as incompetent), such as “could not work with new technologies” and “was not
motivated to learn new skills”.
Age salience. The level of age salience in corporate storytelling was indicated by the presence of age by adding age or words indicating age (Finkelstein & Burke, 1998; Harwood, 1999; Edwards & Harwood, 2003). In the high age salience condition, the age of an older worker was given and made notable by words indicating age, such as: “older” and “57 years old”. The age 57 was chosen to represent the age of the older main character because an age above 55 is usually considered to be older (Maloney & Paul 1989), In the low age salience
condition, age of an older worker or words referring to age such as “old” were not given or notable.
Manipulation check
To check whether the manipulation was successful, participants were asked to indicate on a dichotomous scale, whether they agreed (vs. disagreed) with the following two items (a) Mees the older employee in the story is incompetent and (b) The age of Mees was given in the story. For the item whether the older employee in the story was portrayed as incompetent, the fisher-exact test was significant (fisher-exact p = .000). Of the participants in the
disconfirming condition 89.3% disagreed, while 68.4% of the participants in the confirming condition agreed that the older employee was portrayed as incompetent. These findings confirm that the disconfirming (vs. confirming) conditions were manipulated effectively. For the item whether the participants agreed that the older employee’s age was described in the
stimulus material, the fisher-exact test was significant (fisher-exact p = .000). Of the participants in the low age salience condition 90.2% disagreed, while 95.7% of the
participants in the high age salience condition agreed that the age of the older employee was salient in the stimulus material. Thus, this manipulation was also effective. Additionally, on average participants disagreed with the statement that it would be strange if a colleague would tell the story of the stimulus material to another colleague, vouching for the perceived realism of the used corporate stories, see table 6 in Appendix 1.
Mediators and dependent variables
Stereotype threat. Stereotype threat included five items that focused on perceiving age-based stereotypes in organizational settings (Kulik et al., 2016) (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree). A varimax rotated Principle Component Analysis (PCA) suggests that the five items form two dimensional scales, see Table 2a in Appendix 1. Component 1 is used for the construction of the scale since it explains the most variance in stereotype threat (45,5%). This component consists of four items since one of the five items had a factor loading below .45, see Table 3b in the Appendix. A reliability analysis indicated that Cronbach’s Alpha (α = .61) could be improved by deleting the item “My age does not affect people’s perception of my ability” (α = .72) with a factor loading below .45. Therefore, the scale was constructed with the means of the other four items, resulting in a reasonably reliable scale. Higher scores indicated higher perceived levels of stereotype threat (M = 2.13, SD = .68, α = .72, example item: “Some people in my workplace feel I have less ability because of my age”).
Task performance. The task performance of participants was measured with a free-recall task (Hess, Auman, Colcombe, & Rahhal, 2003). Participants were shown a list consisting of 30 words divided into two columns based on Howard’s norms (1979), see Appendix 3.
Participants were asked to study the words. After 40 seconds participants were redirected to the next page in which they were asked to recall and write down as many words from the list
as possible. The sum score of correct recalled words were used as an indication of
performance. Higher scores indicated higher memory performance of older employees. Prior research indicates that older adults recall around 15 words performing around the mid-range as a group (Hess & Pullen, 1994). Participants scored below this average (M = 9.09, SD = 3.79).
Job engagement. The level of job engagement was measured with a 9-item shortened version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Likert Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) (1 = never, 5 = always). A varimax rotated PCA implies that the nine items form a one-dimensional scale and explain 53,5% of the variance in Job engagement, see Table 3a in Appendix 1. The item “I get carried away when I’m working” was the only item with a factor loading below .45, see Table 3b in Appendix 1. A reliability analysis indicated that Cronbach’s Alpha (α = .88) could be improved by deleting this item (α = .90). Nonetheless, all items were used for scale
construction since it relies on three dimensions (e.g., vigor, dedication and absorption) each consisting of three items. Excluding an item can potentially decrease the validity of the scale. Higher scores indicated higher levels of job engagement of older employees (M = 3.82, SD = .53, α = .88), example item: “I am proud of the work I do”).
Self-perceived job performance. The degree of self-perceived job performance was measured with a 5-item Likert scale modified to the perception of an older employee (Williams & Anderson, 1991) (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree). A varimax rotated PCA implies that four items form a one-dimensional scale and explain 57.4% of the variance in Self-perceived job performance, see Table 4a in Appendix 1. The item “I neglect aspects of the job I am obligated to perform.”, was the only item with a factor loading below .45, see Table 4b in Appendix 1. A reliability analysis indicated that Cronbach’s Alpha (α = .78) could be
improved by deleting this item (α = .86). Therefore, the scale was constructed with the means of the other four items, resulting in a reasonably reliable scale. Higher scores indicated higher
levels of Self-perceived job performance (M = 4.30, SD = .53, α = .86, example item: “Some people in my workplace feel I have less ability because of my age”).
Control variables
The control variables ‘Perceiving oneself as old’ and ‘Stereotypical Perception of older employees’ were used as a robustness check for hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 since I expect that these variables could affect stereotype threat. Participants indicated on a 5-point Likert scale whether they belonged to the group of older adults (i.e., perceiving oneself as old) (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree), since a condition of perceiving stereotype threat is feeling you belong to the stereotyped group (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Additionally, the stereotypical perception of older employees was measured with five items measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree), to find out if participants hold the dominant negative stereotypical beliefs about older employees as assumed in this study. A varimax rotated PCA implies that five items form a one-dimensional scale and explain 68.0% of the variance in Stereotypical perception of older employees, see Table 5a in Appendix 1. All items had factor loadings above .45, see table 5b in Appendix 1. A reliability analysis indicated that Cronbach’s Alpha (α = .88) could be improved by deleting this item (α = .89). Nonetheless, all items were used for scale construction since this improvement was marginal. Higher scores indicated higher levels of stereotypical perception of older employees (M = 4.02, SD = .58, α = .88), example item: “I expect that the following trait is applicable to older employees: Capable”).
Analysis
First the dataset will be cleaned. For hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 an analysis of variance is used to compare the means of two groups (e.g., disconfirming vs. confirming / low vs. high age salience) on a continuous dependent variable (e.g., stereotype threat). Control variables are added as covariates. Hypotheses 4 till 8 are tested in Hayes (2013) PROCESS program with a
regression analysis. This analysis can predict a continuous dependent variable from a number of categorical and continuous independent variables, as is the case for these hypotheses. Hypothesis 4 till 6, and hypotheses 7 till 9, will be tested together in one regression analysis.
Results
Descriptive results
The descriptive results and correlations of the dependent variables are displayed in Table 1. There seem to be no significant correlations between stereotype threat and memory task performance. It is however likely that effects will be found between perceived stereotype threat, engagement and job performance. Furthermore, the results suggest that older
employees hold positive stereotypical beliefs about their own-age group. Across all groups, participants perceived older adults as competent rather than incompetent (M = 4.02, SD = .95). Additionally, across all groups, participants perceived themselves as old (M = 3.81, SD = .95).
Table 1
Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations for the dependent variables of H4-H9
Stereotype Threat Memory Task Performance Engagement Self-perceived Job Performance M SD Stereotype Threat 1 2.13 .68 Memory Task Performance -.10 1 9.09 3.80 Engagement -.32** .06 1 3.82 .53 Self-perceived Job Performance -.26** .16 .32** 1 4.30 .53 *p <.05; ** p < .01
A univariate two-way ANOVA with disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes and low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling as independent variables and stereotype threat as dependent variable was used to test hypothesis 1, 2 and 3. I expected that disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling would negatively affect the perceived stereotype threat of older employees (H1). Unexpectantly, I find no significant difference between those exposed to disconfirming (M = 2.09, SD = .64) versus confirming (M = 2.15, SD = .71) stereotypes in corporate storytelling regarding perceived stereotype threat of older employees, F(1, 142) = .57, p = .454. I reject hypothesis 1. I also expected that low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling would negatively affect the perceived stereotype threat of older employees (H2). Disconfirming my assumption, I find no significant difference between those exposed to low (M = 2.17, SD = .73) versus high (M = 2.07, SD = .62) age salience in corporate storytelling regarding perceived stereotype threat of older employees, F(1, 142) = 1.13, p = .291. I reject hypothesis 2. Additionally, I assumed that age salience
moderates the effect of disconfirming (versus confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling on the perceived stereotype threat of older employees, such that the negative effect of disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotype will be more pronounced under the condition of low (vs. high) age salience (H3). Unexpectantly, age salience does not significantly moderate the effect of disconfirming (versus confirming) stereotypes in a corporate storytelling on the perceived stereotype threat of older employees, such that the negative effect of disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotype will be more pronounced under the condition of low (vs. high) age salience, F(1, 142) = .55, p = .461. I reject hypothesis 3. Furthermore, the robustness check indicates that stereotypical perceptions of older employees, F(1, 142) = 2.03, p = .156, and perceiving oneself as old, F(1, 142) = 2.37, p = .126 does not affect the perceived stereotype threat.
Table 2
Hayes Process regression analysis results
Independent variables Dependent variables F(d,f) R2 b t p 95% CI Disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling Stereotype threat .10(1,149) .00 -.03 -.31 .755 -.25 - .19
Low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling Stereotype threat .58(1,149) .00 -.08 -.76 .449 -.30- .14
Stereotype threat Memory task
performance
.67(2,148) .00 -.53 -1.16 .247 -1.43 - .37
Stereotype threat Job
engagement
17.05(1, 149) .10 -.25 -4.13 .000 -.37 - -.13
Job engagement Self- perceived job
performance
10.94(2,148) .13 .26 3.26 .001 .10 - 43
Hayes (2013) Process regression method of mediation analysis with bootstrap with disconfirming (versus confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling as independent
variable, stereotype threat as mediator and memory task performance as dependent variable is used to test hypotheses 4 and 5. I expected that perceived stereotype threat of older employees negatively affects memory task performance (H4). I also proposed that exposure to
disconfirming (versus confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling is positively related to memory task performance through stereotype threat (H5). The model that tests these
hypotheses is not significant (R2 = .01, F(df) = .10(1,149), p = .755). I consult table 2. The results show that perceived stereotype threat of older employees does not significantly affect memory task performance. Hence, I reject hypothesis 4. Again, I consult table 2. The results indicate that disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling do not significantly negatively affect the perceived stereotype threat of older employees.
Additionally, the indirect (mediated) effect of exposure to disconfirming (versus confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling on memory task performance via stereotype threat is not significant: The bounds of its 95% bias-corrected 10,000 bootstraps CIs did exceed zero: b’ =
-.03, t = .18, 95% CI: -.09 - .24. I must reject H5.
I also expected that exposure to low (versus high) age salience in corporate storytelling is positively related to memory task performance through stereotype threat (H6). The
regression model with low (versus high) age salience as independent variable, stereotype threat as mediator and memory task performance as dependent variable is not significant, (R2 = .01, F(df)= .72(2,148), p = .489). I consult table 2. The results indicate that low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling does not significantly negatively affect the perceived stereotype threat of older employees. Additionally, the results in table 2 show as
aforementioned that stereotype threat does not affect memory task performance. The indirect (mediated) effect of exposure to low (versus high) age salience in corporate storytelling on memory task performance via stereotype threat is not significant: The bounds of its 95% bias-corrected 10,000 bootstraps CIs did exceed zero: b’ =.04, 95% CI: -.10 - .25. I have to reject H6.
I proposed that Stereotype threat perceived by older employees would negatively affect older employees’ job engagement (H7). Again, I consult Table 2. The results show that stereotype threat does significantly negatively affect job engagement. Hence, I accept H7. I also proposed that job engagement positively affects job performance of older employees (H8) and that stereotype threat negatively affects job performance of older employees, through job engagement (H9). I consult Table 2. The path from stereotype threat to job engagement is negative and significant. Hence, I accept H8. The regression model with stereotype threat as independent variable, job engagement as mediator and self-perceived job performance is significant, (F(2,148) = 10.94, R2 = .13, p = .000). The indirect (mediated) effect of level of perceived stereotype threat on job performance via employee engagement was also significant: The bounds of its 95% bias-corrected 10,000 bootstraps CIs did not negatively exceed zero: b’ = -.06, 95% CI: -.28- -.02. Thus, I accept H9.
Conclusions and discussion
This study moves beyond prior research by demonstrating whether corporate storytelling can be an effective communication tool to reduce stereotype threat causing an increase in
engagement and performance in organizational contexts. First, the results regarding relationships between disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling, low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling, stereotype threat, memory task
performance, job engagement and self-perceived job performance will be discussed. Second, theoretical - and practical implications will be specified. Lastly, the limitations of this study and future recommendations will be discussed.
This study implies that corporate stories portraying older employees in a stereotype disconfirming manner versus a confirming manner does not significantly evoke lower levels of perceived stereotype threat of older employees. Likewise, exposure to low (vs. high) age salience in corporate storytelling did not negatively affect this threat. It also became apparent that stereotype threat did not cause older employees to perform less on a memory
performance task or mediated the positive relationship between disconfirming (vs.
confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling and this task. Additionally, stereotype threat did not mediate the positive relationship between low (vs. high) age salience and memory task performance. These results disconfirm the expectations of this study. An important condition to elicit stereotype threat is that of identification with the stereotyped group (Walton et al., 2015). Regarding the effects of corporate storytelling on stereotype threat, identification with the stereotyped character could therefore be an important condition as well. In other studies on narrative processing and narrative impact, state transportation into the story was assessed (Appel & Richter, 2010; Green, 2004; Appel, 2011). Transportation (Appel & Richter, 2010; Green & Brock, 2000) has been linked to stronger narrative persuasion. Conceivably, readers
did not identify with the stereotyped character or were not immersed in the stories, potentially causing the aforementioned insignificant findings.
The findings also disconfirm the assumption that age salience moderates the
relationship between disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes in corporate storytelling and perceived stereotype threat of older employees, such that the negative effect of disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotype on perceived stereotype threat will be more pronounced under the condition of low (vs. high) age salience. Based on the SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), I assumed that high age salience would evoke one’s group identity of older adults and therefore awaken negative stereotypical beliefs about their group, causing an increase in perceived stereotype threat. However, in this study older employees held very positive attitudes towards their own-age group. Therefore, high own-age salience could have evoked positive rather than negative stereotypical beliefs for both the disconfirming (vs. confirming) corporate stories, potentially eliminating the effect on perceived stereotype threat of older employees. Nevertheless, the current study finds that stereotype threat does negatively affect job engagement, and job engagement positively affects job performance. Additionally, the findings suggest that stereotype threat does negatively affect job performance partially through employee engagement. The coping mechanisms necessary to perform in situations that chronically produce stereotype threat remove cognitive- and motivational resources from the tasks at hand (Kang & Inzlicht, 2014), impairing performance (Schmader & Beilock, 2012). Such an
environment weakens confidence in one’s own ability resulting in disengagement because this helps employees endure without harming their self-worth (Nussbaum & Steele, 2007;
Woodcock et al., 2012). On the contrary, engaged employees are prepared to go the extra mile because they are cognitively, emotionally and psychically attached when performing tasks, increasing job performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).
Theoretical implications
Prior literature has examined various features of stories in organizations (Mahler, 1988; Näslund & Pemer, 2012). Of late, however studies have begun exploring if certain types of narratives can be useful for attaining specific outcomes (Martin, 2016). For instance, the impact of historical narratives about group resilience on the intellectual performance of two negative stereotyped groups on perceived stereotype threat and performance (Bikmen, 2015) or the narrative impact on behavioural assimilation (Appel, 2011). This presents study complements this line of research in an organizational context. It is one of the firsts to assess if corporate storytelling can play a role in reducing stereotype threat. To this end, this study can be a starting point for future research on this subject. Although this research yielded no significant results for this effect, this study does contribute to the small but growing literature on stereotype threat in organizational contexts (Block et al., 2011; Kalokerinos et al, 2014; Kulik et al., 2016).
Additionally, while most interventions targeting the reduction of stereotype threat focus on changing the individual’s cognition (e.g., self-affirmation, (Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006); emphasizing an incremental view of intelligence, (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002), this study offers the literature insights into interventions targeting situational and peripheral cues. Although numerous studies demonstrated that stereotype threat negatively affects short-term performance, its effects in work settings remain rather unexplored (Block et al., 2011; Kalokerinos et al., 2014). Especially, the negative impact of stereotype threat on employee engagement has received little attention (Kulik et al., 2016). The findings of this current study contribute to this knowledge. It increases the awareness that two vital outcomes of stereotype threat are job performance and engagement.
Practical implications
corporate storytelling were found, it is still recommended when using corporate stories, that organizations should portray older employees in a stereotype-disconfirming manner rather than confirming manner in corporate storytelling. Prior literature indicates that portraying stereotyped targets in a stereotype-disconfirming manner is useful (Ramasubramanian, 2007, 2011), and suggests that providing stereotype-disconfirming information on a negatively evaluated dimension is the most effective (Kroon, Van Selm, Ter Hoeven, & Vliegenthart, 2016). Thus, in corporate storytelling, or even other forms of communication, organizations should portray older employees’ capacities in a more truthful way, emphasizing stereotype disconfirming information. These strategies might benefit and be equally valuable for other stereotyped groups besides older employees within organizations such as women and minorities (Block et al., 2011). This opens up a research avenue with significant practical relevance for a broad range of stereotyped groups.
Limitations and future recommendations
This study is not without shortcomings. Future research on corporate storytelling and
stereotype threat should include the aforementioned measurements of transportation into the narrative and identification with the stereotyped character. These could prove to be important conditions for corporate storytelling to elicit stereotype threat.
Future research focussing on the acute and chronic effects of this threat in the
organizational domain should consider measuring threat in multiple or a more general way. In the current study, the items measuring stereotype threat were focused on perceiving this threat within the organization participants worked. The stimulus material (e.g., the corporate stories) belonged to a fictive organization, potentially causing participants to feel stereotype threat, but not perceive stereotype threat within their organization. This could clarify why perceived stereotype threat did affect job performance, but not memory task performance.
was standardized, a successful manipulation check was conducted, and participants confirmed the perceived realism of the corporate stories. Nevertheless, future research should explore other characteristics of corporate storytelling that could influence perceived stereotype threat. For instance, stories about high-level members in an organization are likely to convey values, but value-upholding and -violating stories of lower-level members seem to have a larger effect on behaviours (Martin, 2016). A similar relationship could appear between the difference between a low (vs. high) stereotyped member in corporate storytelling and stereotype threat.
In this increasingly ageing society, solely increasing the retirement age can turn into a vicious circle if disengagement leads to turnover, leaving the ageing population problem unresolved. The findings presented here draw attention to the importance of reducing stereotype threat with regards to this problem - to in turn – increase job engagement and performance. As well as offer insights about using disconfirming (vs. confirming) stereotypes and low (v. high) age salience in corporate storytelling to reduce this threat. If change in performance and reduced stereotype threat is observed after reading a one-page text as shown in the study of Bikmen (2015), one can still be optimistic about the use of corporate
References
Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Steele, C. M. (2006). The detrimental effects of a suggestion of sexism in an instruction situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 602–615. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.004
Appel, M. (2011). A story about a stupid person can make you act stupid (or smart):
Behavioral assimilation (and contrast) as narrative impact. Media Psychology 14(2), 144-167. doi:10.1080/15213269.2011.573461
Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2010). Transportation and need for affect in narrative persuasion: A mediated moderation model. Media Psychology 13(2), 101-135.
doi:10.1080/15213261003799847
Appel, M., & Weber, S. (2017). Do mass mediated stereotypes harm members of negatively stereotyped groups? A meta-analytical review on media-generated stereotype threat and stereotype lift. Communication Research, 1-29. doi:10.1177/0093650217715543 Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38(2), 113-125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review 14(1), 20-39. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management 34(3), 325-374. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316059
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International 13(3), 209-223. doi:10.1108/13620430810870476
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behaviour: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 71(2), 230-244. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230.
Bikmen, N. (2015). History as a resource: Effects of narrative construction of group history on intellectual performance. Journal of Social Issues 71(2), 309-323. doi:
10.1111/josi.12112
Block, C. J., Koch, S. M., Liberman, B. E., Merriweather, T. J., & Roberson, L. (2011). Contending with stereotype threat at work: A model of long-term responses. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(4), 570–600. doi:10.1177/0011000010382459 Boje, D. (1991). Consulting and change in the storytelling organisation. Journal of
Organisational Change Management, 4(3), 7–17. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000001193 Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045-1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239 Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psyhcological intervention. Science 313(5791), 1307-1310.
doi:10.1126/science.1128317
Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Social identity, organizational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and products. British Journal of Management 18(1), 1-16. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00522.x
Cuddy, A. J. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2002). Doddering, but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping of older Persons. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and
Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011).The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73–98. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Norton, M. I., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues 61(2), 265-283. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00405.x
Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D. M., & Gerhardstein, R. (2002). Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women
academically and professionally. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1615-1628. doi: 10.1177/014616702237644
Dowling, G. R. (2006). Communicating corporate reputation through stories. California Management Review 49(1), 82-100. doi:10.2307/41166372
Edwards, C., & Harwood, J. (2003). Social identity in the classroom: An examination of age identification between students and instructors. Communication Education 52(1), 60- 65. doi:10.1080/03634520302463
Finkelstein, L. M., & Burke, M. J. (1998). Age stereotyping at work: The role of rater and contextual factors on evaluations of job applicants. The Journal of General
Pyschology, 125(4), 317-345. doi: 10.1080/00221309809595341
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Pscyhology (pp. 357-411). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Fiske, S., & Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(6). doi: 10.1037//0022- 3514.82.6.878
Fiske, S. T., & Ruscher, J. B. (1989). On-line processes in category-based and individuating impressions: Some basic principles and methodological reflections. In J. N. Bassili (Ed.), On-line cognition in person perception (pp. 141-173). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Forman, J. (2013). Storytelling in business: The authentic and fluent organization. Stanford, CA: University Press.
Gill, R. (2014). Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relations Review 41(5), 662- 674. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.012
Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes 38(2), 247-266.
doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3802_5
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701-721. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
Gruber, J., & Wise, D. (2005). Social security programs and retirement around the world: Fiscal implications. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11290.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010) . A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 102-117). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Harwood, J. (1999). Age identification, social identification gratifications, and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 43(1).
doi:10.1080/08838159909364479
A regression-based approach. Journal of Educational Measurement 51(3), 335-337. doi:10.1111/jedm.12050
He, H., Zhu, W., & Zheng, X. (2014). Procedural justice and employee engagement: Roles of organizational identification and moral identity centrality. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 2681–69. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1774-3
Henkens, K. (2005). Stereotyping older workers and retirement: The managers’ point of view. Canadian. Journal on Aging/ La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 24(4), 353– 366. doi:10.1353/cja.2006.0011
Hertzog, C., Lineweaver, T. T., & McGuire, C. L. (1999). Beliefs about memory and aging. In T. M. Hess, & F. Blanchard-Fields (Eds.), Social cognition and aging (pp. 43-68). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012345260-3/50004-5
Hess, T. M., Auman, C., Colcombe, S.J., & Rahhal, T.A. (2003). The impact of stereotype threat on age differences in memory performance. Journal of Gerontology: Series B, 58(1), 3–11.doi:10.1093/geronb/58.1.P3
Hess, T. M., & Hinson, J. T. (2006). Age-related variation in the influences of aging stereotypes on memory in adulthood. Psychology and Aging 21(3), 621-625. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.621
Hess, T. M., & Pullen, S. M. (1994). Adult age differences in informational biases during impression formation. Psychology and Aging, 9(2), 237–250. doi:10.1037/0882- 7974.9.2.237
Inzlicht, M., Tuliett, A. M., & Legault, L. (2011). Lingering effects: Stereotype threat hurts more than you think. Social Issues and Policy Review 5(1), 227-256. doi:
10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01031.x
Kalokerinos, E. K., von Hippel, C., & Zacher, H. (2014). Is stereotype threat a useful construct for organizational psychology research and practice? Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(3), 381–402. doi: 10.1111/iops.12167
Kang., S. K., & Inzlicht, M. (2014). Stereotype threat spillover: Why stereotype threat is more useful for organizations than it seems. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 7(3), 452-456. doi:10.1111/iops.12179
Kaye, M. (1995). Organisational myths and storytelling as communication management: A conceptual framework for learning an organisation’s culture. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 1(2), 1–13.
doi:10.1017/S1833367200006295
Koch, S. C., Müller, S. M., & Sieverding, M. (2008). Women and computers: Effects of stereotype threat on attribution of failure. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1795–1803. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.007
Krings, F., Sczesny, S., & Kluge, A. (2011). Stereotypical inferences as mediators of age discrimination: The role of competence and warmth. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 187–201. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00721.x.
Kroon, A. C., van Selm, M., ter Hoeven, C., & Vliegenthart, R. (2016). Poles apart: The processing and consequences of mixed media stereotypes of older workers. Journal of Communication 66(5), 811-833. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12249
Kulik, C. T., Ryan, S., Harper, S., & George, G. (2014). From the editors: Aging populations and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 929–935. doi:
10.5465/amj.2014.4004.
Kulik, C. T., Perera. S., & Cregan, C. (2016). Engage me: The mature-age worker and stereotype threat. Acadamy of Management Journal 59(6), 2132-2156.
doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0564
judgment: A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin 129(4), 522-544. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.129.4.522
Lamont, R. A., Swift, H. J., & Abrams, D. (2015). A review and meta-analysis of age-based stereotype threat: Negative stereotypes, not facts, do the damage. Psychology and Aging, 30(1), 180–193. doi:10.1037/a0038586
Levy, B. R. (1996). Improving memory in old age through implicit self-stereotyping. Journal of personality and social psychology 71(6), 1092-1107. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.71.6.1092
Levy, B. R. (2003). Mind matters: cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. Journals of Gerontology: Series B 58(4), 203 -211. doi:10.1093/geronb/58.4.P203 Lin, T., Ankudowich, E., & Ebner. N. C. (2017). Greater perceived similarity between self and own-age others in older than you adults. Psychology and Aging, 32(2), 377-387. doi:10.1037/pag0000173
Mahler, J. (1988). Identifying and interpreting the symbolism in organizational stories. Administration & Society 22(3), 344-368. doi: 10.1177/009539978802000305. Maloney, T. W., & Paul, B. (1989). Enabling older Americans to work: Annual report of the commonwealth fund. New York, NY: Harkness House.
Martin, S. R. (2016). Stories about values and valuable stories: A field experiment of the power of narratives to shape newcomers’ actions. Academy of Management Journal 59(5), 1707-1724. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0061
McCann, R. M., & Keaton, S. A. (2013). A cross cultural investigation of age stereotypes and communication perceptions of older and younger workers in the USA and Thailand. Educational Gerontology, 39(5), 326–341. doi:10.1080/03601277.2012.700822 Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2002). A social-developmental view of ageism. In
