Sounds of Silence: Using the Stereotype Content Model to Understand Perceptions of Introverts and Extraverts at Work

  • McCord M
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This paper drew on the stereotype content model (SCM) to clarify cultural stereotypes about introverted and extraverted people at work to increase our understanding of the stereotype-driven process that may lead to negative responses to introversion and subsequent detriment to employee health and well-being. The hypothesis that introverted workers would be rated as lower in warmth and competence than extraverted workers was examined across three studies. Study 1 used qualitative content analyses to assess open responses that freely described introverted and extraverted colleagues. Study 2 tested the hypothesis quantitatively using established measures of warmth and competence. Finally, Study 3 tested if one’s self-identified personality impacted perceptions of warmth and competence. Across all studies, introverted employees were endorsed as being lower in warmth and competence than extraverted employees. In Study 3, warmth and competence stereotypes held regardless of one’s identification as introverted or extraverted. Finally, social interaction requirements of the job moderated perceptions of competence in Study 1, but not in Study 2 or 3. The present findings extend the SCM to new groups and provide empirical evidence to support a key driver in negative responses to introversion in the workplace. The results also suggest that job demands and personality identity salience are important considerations, and a need for organizations to engage in best practices to reduce the negative impact of these stereotypes on employees’ health and well-being.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McCord, M. A. (2025). Sounds of Silence: Using the Stereotype Content Model to Understand Perceptions of Introverts and Extraverts at Work. Occupational Health Science, 9(2), 331–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-024-00218-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free