Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-xg4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-08T12:39:11.441Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Attitude Similarity and Stereotypicality in Leader Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Beatriz Montes-Berges
Universidad de Jaén (Spain)
Miguel Moya*
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Miguel Moya, Facultad de Psicología, Campus de Cartuja, 18011, Granada (Spain). E-mail:


Stereotypicality and attitudinal similarity are variables broadly studied in the research about leader's acceptance and evaluation. However, the interaction between these variables has not been deeply studied. An experimental research in which we analyze the influence of both variables and their interaction on leaders' evaluation is presented. A3 × 3 (attitudinal similarity [none, moderate, high] × leaders' stereotypicality [none, moderately and very stereotypical]) design was used. Participants were 215 Psychology students. Results show that both variables influenced leaders' evaluation, although the influence of stereotypicality was stronger than that of attitude similarity. The significant interaction between both variables indicates that, when a very stereotypical leader is not at all similar or moderately similar to the perceiver, his or her evaluation diminishes.

La estereotipicidad y la semejanza actitudinal son dos variables ampliamente estudiadas en los estudios sobre la aceptación y valoración de los líderes. Sin embargo, la interacción entre ambas no ha sido abordada en profundidad. Aquí se presenta una investigación experimental en la que se estudia y compara la influencia de estas dos variables y de su interacción sobre la evaluación de un líder. Se utilizó un diseño 3 (semejanza actitudinal: ninguna, moderada y alta) × 3 (estereotipicidad: líderes nada, moderadamente y muy estereotípicos). Participaron 215 estudiantes de Psicología. Los resultados muestran que ambas variables influyen significativamente en la evaluación de los líderes, aunque la estereotipicidad lo hace en mayor medida que la semejanza. Sin embargo, la interacción significativa entre ambas variables indica que cuando el líder muy estereotípico es moderadamente o no es nada semejante al perceptor, su evaluación disminuye.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stodgill's handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, D. J., Scott, K. A., & Lewis, H. (2004). Information processing and leadership. In Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 125147). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, D., Gouaux, C., Griffit, W., Lamberth, J.Murakawa, M., Prasad, M.B., & Ramirez, M. (1971). The ubiquitous relationship: Attitude similarity and attraction. A cross-cultural study. Human Relations, 24, 201207.Google Scholar
Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11671170.Google Scholar
Castro, A. (2006). Teorías implícitas del liderazgo, contexto y capacidad de conducción. Anales de Psicología, 22, 8997.Google Scholar
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational setting. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637647.Google Scholar
Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorization, attribution, and encoding processes on leadership perceptions. Journal of the Applied Psychology, 72, 97106.Google Scholar
Cuadrado, I. (2004). Valores y rasgos estereotípicos de género de mujeres líderes. Psicothema, 16, 270275.Google Scholar
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 4678.Google Scholar
Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings. The role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Organization Management, 23, 189216.Google Scholar
Eagleson, G., Waldersee, R., & Simmons, R. (2000). Leadership behaviour similarity as a basis of selection into a management team. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 301308.Google Scholar
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exhange. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 9881012.Google Scholar
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293310.Google Scholar
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659676.Google Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi, M. (1994). Cross-cultural leadership-making: Bridging American and Japanese diversity for team advantage. In Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 415446). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 10871099.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 12481263.Google Scholar
Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol., 2, pp. 485537). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 387397.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas. In Staw, B. M. & Cummins, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (vol. 13, pp. 191228). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662674.Google Scholar
López Zafra, E., Berrios, M. P., & Cejas, C. (2003). Percepción de los seguidores del estilo de liderazgo de su superior y su relación con la congruencia de valores sociales líder-seguidor. Encuentros de Psicología, 1, 292296.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 87128.Google Scholar
Lord, R., Foti, R., & De Vader, C. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343378.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L, & Hall, R. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 311338.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. (1993). Leadership and information processing. Linking perceptions and performance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 159203). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Molero, F. (2004). El liderazgo. In Huici, C. & Morales, J. F. (Eds.), Psicología de grupos. Estructura y procesos (pp. 141169). Madrid: UNED.Google Scholar
Moya, M. (1999). Atracción y relaciones interpersonales. In Morales, J. F., Moya, M., Pérez, J. A., Fernández, I., Fernández-Dols, J. M., Huici, C., Páez, D., & Marques, J. (Eds.), Psicología social (2nd ed., pp. 137154). Madrid: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Novak, D. W., & Lerner, M. J. (1968). Rejection as a consequence of perceived similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 147152.Google Scholar
Philips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 9901001.Google Scholar
Ramos, M. M., Catena, A., & Trujillo, H. (2004). Manual de métodos y técnicas de investigación en ciencias del comportamiento. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.Google Scholar
Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study and implications for research. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 2542.Google Scholar
Steiner, D. D., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). The role of work values in leaders' attributions and the development of leader-member exchanges. International Journal of Management, 6, 8190.Google Scholar
Stodgill, R. M. (Ed.) (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Turban, D. B., Jones, A. P., & Rozelle, R. M. (1990). Influences of supervisor liking of a subordinate and the reward context on the treatment and evaluation of that subordinate. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 215233.Google Scholar
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experimental and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487499.Google Scholar
Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1994). A cognitive interpretation of trans-actional and transformational leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 161186.Google Scholar
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 616.Google Scholar