The Impact of Female Stigma Perception on the Tendency to Choose High-Risk Leadership Positions

The Impact of Female Stigma Perception on the Tendency to Choose High-Risk Leadership Positions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The Impact of Female Stigma Perception on the Tendency to Choose High-Risk Leadership Positions Linlin Zheng, Yang Zhang, Yuqing Huang, Qiuying Zhong, Di Ye This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7543643/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Based on the career trajectories of women in the new era and the phenomenon of the 'glass cliff'—where women are more likely to be promoted to leadership positions during organizational crises, grounded in the emotional events theory, this study investigates the mechanism of how female stigma perception affects the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions. Using multilevel regression analysis based on data collected from 278 valid questionnaires, the findings reveal that female’s heightened stigma perception increases the likelihood of choosing high-risk leadership positions. High stigma perception enhance the competition motive for dominant status, which in turn amplifies the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions. Conversely, low stigma perception fosters the competition motive for attaining prestige status, which diminishes the willingness to assume high-risk leadership positions. Furthermore, the impostor phenomenon negatively moderates the relationship between stigma perception and competition motive for prestige status, while workplace ostracism positively moderates the relationship between stigma perception and competition motive for dominant status. The study concludes with recommendations directed at the societal institutional level, organizational management practices, and individual level. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Glass Cliff Female Stigma Perception Status Competitive Motive Impostor Syndrome Workplace Ostracism Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 INTRODUCTION Developed countries have been actively encouraging women to re-enter the workforce as a strategic response to the aging labor force and as a means to stimulate female economic growth through greater female labor participation. In countries such as the United States, Singapore, and South Korea, women account for over 60 percent of the total employed population, reflecting both structural labor market needs and gender inclusion policies. In China, policy initiatives, including the Chinese Women Development Program (2021-2030), the Chinese Women Rights Protection Law, and the Female Worker Protection System, are designed to ensure women’s equitable access to wages, benefits, occupational safety, healthcare, and an optimized employment structure. In 2022, women constituted more than 40% of the total employed population in China, however, this employment percentage is still lower than that of developed countries. Despite some progress, women remain underrepresented in leadership roles, with only 37.1% of corporate directorships held by women. This disparity highlights the persistence of the "glass ceiling" which continues to constrain women’s career advancement. Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests that women are more likely to be promoted during organizational crises and face the phenomenon of "glass cliff", which places them in high-risk leadership positions where they face heightened scrutiny and increased vulnerability to failure(Keith D. Dorsey, 2023). Most research on the operating mechanisms and impact assessments of the "glass cliff" phenomenon have primarily been conducted from the perspectives of female leadership, senior managers’ mindsets, and social semiotics (Pinel, 1999; Ryan, Haslam, Morgenroth, Rink, Stoker, Peters, 2016). However, there remains a significant gap in research that examines decision-making psychology from the perspective of women's subjective perceptions. Therefore, it is essential to investigate job choice tendency under the high-risk characteristics of the "glass cliff" phenomenon from the perspective of women's subjective perception. While existing literature often emphasizes work-family balance among ordinary female employees and the influence of factors such as age, marital status, and childbearing on career trajectories. Additionally, studies often highlight stereotypical managerial strengths associated with women—such as effective communication, motivational abilities, empathy, fairness in decision-making and a commitment to fostering harmonious, collaborative team environments. Moreover, these studies underscore organizational values brought about by employee innovation, and overall team performance. (Uzoigwe, Low, Noor, 2016; Alejandra, Nora, González, & Molina, 2018; Newton, Stewart, 2013; Williams & Polman, 2015). Research on the impact of stigmatization on working women has reached a relatively advanced stage. For example, within traditional disciplinary frameworks and gendered models of labor division, women are frequently stereotyped by managers, spouses, and societal structures as risk-averse, lacking risk perception, and incompetent (Beckmann & Menkhoff, 2008; Blais & Weber, 2006). The impact of subjective perspectives, such as women's stigma perception, on career development has increasingly attracted the attention of scholars. Women's diverse responses to stigmatizing situations are driven by specific status competition motives (Lamptey & Lee, 2022), and status competition motives have emerged as an underlying factor driving the diverse coping strategies women employ when confronting career development obstacles. (Benenson, 2022). Consequently, in studies examining job choice tendencies for high-risk positions within the context of the "glass cliff" phenomenon, incorporating status competition motives is essential to fundamentally elucidate women's workplace behaviors. A reduced perception of stigma enables women to gain respect and recognition through proactive engagement, whereas a heightened perception of stigma may compel women to exert radical control over their circumstances and pursue resources, power, and opportunities through unconventional means (Rudman & Glick, 1999; Hoyt & Blascovich, 2010). Women are prone to experience impostor syndrome, characterized by self-doubt, discomfort with external recognition, and avoidance of high achievement (Clance & Imes, 1978). Additionally, some women exacerbate relational rivalry and power striving related to stigmatization within an already exclusionary work environment. Thus comprehensive and systematic research is needed to explore how stigma perception influences job choice tendencies via status competition motives in workplace contexts. This research begins with an examination of the glass cliff phenomenon and investigates the psychological mechanisms linking women's stigma perceptions to their tendencies of pursuing high-risk leadership positions. The study explores the mediating role of status competition motives in this relationship. Additionally, "impostor syndrome" and "workplace ostracism" are introduced as situational moderators to examine the impacts of stigma perceptions. Theoretically, this research deepens understanding of both internal and external factors shaping women's career decision to pursue high-risk leadership roles. It provides a comprehensive analysis of how internal psychological perceptions, personality traits, status motives, and external workplace ostracism interact within this context. Furthermore, it offers a multi-path framework for understanding women’s decision-making processes regarding high-risk positions in the workplace. Practically, the study assists organizations in objectively evaluating female leadership potential while acknowledging the psychological changes women may face. It advocates for targeted incentive strategies for highly capable female employees who are prone to self-doubt. By optimizing developmental environments for women, organizations can expand opportunities for career advancement and mitigate the glass cliff phenomenon, which often associates crisis with female appointments. This approach encourages women to recognize their unique strengths and cultivate self-acceptance, rather than succumbing to self-limiting beliefs, overreliance on external recognition, or tendencies to attribute failure to internal shortcomings, thereby enhancing career stability, professional competence, and skill development. 1 Literature review 1.1 Glass cliff phenomenon 1.1.1 Concept The glass cliff phenomenon was initially characterized as a situation in which women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions during times of organizational or economic crisis, while men are typically promoted during periods of stability and prosperity (Glass & Cook, 2016 ). Early scholars believed that there was a correlation between the increasing number of women on corporate boards and declining stock prices, and some scholars even attribute poor company performance to the presence of women. However, Ryan and Haslam ( 2007 ) presented an alternative explanation, arguing that it is the decline in stock prices that precipitates the appointment of women to board positions. Furthermore, Ryan and Haslam ( 2007 ), along with Brady et al. ( 2011 ), contended that women are more likely to be selected for executive roles when organizations face high risks of failure or become embroiled in public scandals. In other words, the greater the severity of an organizational crisis, the higher the likelihood and proportion of female executives being appointed. The glass cliff phenomenon has also been observed across diverse industries. For instance, women are frequently nominated as political candidates during contentious situations (Jalalzai, 2008 ); female lawyers are often assigned high-stakes and complex cases (Ashby, Ryan, Haslam, 2007 ); and following corruption scandals within FIFA, a woman was historically appointed to a leadership role (Ahn & Cunningham, 2016 ). In the context of the glass cliff phenomenon, appointments of high-risk leadership positions typically occur during crises marked by declining financial performance, technical failures, accidents, scandals, organizational restructuring, and market fluctuations. Candidates assuming these high-risk leadership roles face external instability, operational challenges, and economic pressures (Ryan & Haslam, 2007 ). Furthermore, they often lack recognition and support as well as access to critical information and resources; consequently, their tenures tend to be relatively short. The broader implication of the glass cliff phenomenon is that during crises, women are more likely to obtain high-risk leadership positions in an attempt to save the organization. However, their workplace status is less stable compared to that of men, making them vulnerable to stigmatization through negative evaluations and more likely to be replaced by men. Once displaced from these positions, women face significant challenges in securing similar or equivalent positions within the organization. 1.1.2 Formation factors of glass cliff phenomenon (1) Stereotype and group preference People often develop a "manager-male" and "crisis-female" thinking stereotype rooted in gender stereotypes. The former stereotype is based on the assumption that female characteristics are incompatible with those traditionally associated with effective leadership. However, some traits essential for effectively addressing crises, such as collaborative leadership, teamwork, and emotional regulation, frequently attributed to women (Hunt, Boal, Dodge, 1999 ). Furthermore, female leaders can alleviate performance pressure by signaling change to stakeholders (Ryan, Haslam, Morgenroth, Rink, Stoker, Peters, 2016 ). Conversely, the latter stereotype suggests that men may be perceived as more adept at uniting to support women in high-risk leadership positions as a way of shielding themselves from adverse outcomes (Ryan & Haslam, 2006 ). (2) The scarcity of female resources Women encounter various career barriers (Cardoso & Marques, 2008 ), experience slow and uncertain career progression (Vinnicombe, Doldor, Turner, 2014 ), and have limited access to leadership roles. The "manager-male" and "crisis-female" thinking paradigms render high-risk leadership positions as a rare avenue for advancement. It is not that female candidates are unaware of the glass cliff phenomenon and its inherent injustices towards women (Ryan, Haslam, Postmes, 2007 ); rather, women often feel compelled to pursue high-risk positions despite their generally unwelcoming nature. (3) Other influencing factors Most scholars have examined the formation of the glass cliff phenomenon from external factors such as organizational decision-making, gender bias, industry characteristics, business crises, and signal transmission (Mark & Carol, 2013 ; Aelenei, Yvette Assilaméhou-Kunz, Iacoviello, Kulich, 2020 ). For example, external media exposure reduces the likelihood of women being appointed in glass cliff situations (Ihmels, Haslam, Shemla, Wegge, 2023 ). Darouei & Pluut ( 2018 ) have explored women's career decisions in the glass cliff phenomenon, revealing that women may place greater importance on accepting high-risk roles as a pathway to promotion under certain conditions. However, limited scholarly attention has been devoted to understanding the underlying psychological mechanisms and motivational factors influencing women's choices regarding high-risk leadership positions. 1.2 Review of the literature related to stigma 1.2.1 Concept and measurement of stigma The concept of stigmatization was introduced by Goffman as early as 1963. It refers to a condition in which an individual is marked by attributes deemed discreditable or incompatible with mainstream cultural norms, leading to social devaluation, marginalization, or exclusion. Essentially, stigmatization reflects a negative stereotype that is recognized and perpetuated by members of the dominant cultural group. The marginalized experiences of stigmatized individuals significantly undermine their social status and access to resources(Major & O'Brien, 2005 ). With regard to female stigma perception, Pinel measured it from two aspects: "women's experiences when interacting with men" and "women's perception of how men evaluate women" (Pinel, 1999 ). Chinese scholars, taking into account the local sociocultural context and research objectives, conducted these measurements among general employees. Subsequently, Chen, et al. (2022) developed a scale specifically designed to assess stigma perception among Chinese female leaders, thereby enabling more direct and culturally applicable measurement of stigma perception. 1.2.2 Studies on female stigma formation Research on the factors contributing to the stigmatization of women is relatively well-established, primarily focusing on social culture, institutional structures, and environmental contexts. The differences in social roles, status hierarchies, moral characters, and temperaments between men and women are shaped by the prevailing social environment. In early human societies, gender-based labor division emerged from physiological differences, aiming to leverage gender-specific strengths for group survival. As human societies advanced, although women began participating in various social domains, patriarchal ideologies emphasizing rigid gender distinctions led many women to withdraw from broader societal participation, thereby diminishing their social standing. Some ancient classics prescribed distinct behavioral norms for men and women: men were trained in social skills, moral conduct, martial arts, and strategic thinking to navigate public life and leadership roles, while women were instructed to embody humility, submissiveness, diligence, and inclusiveness, and to cultivate household management abilities. This ideology of gendered labor division implicitly positions men in high-status, technical, managerial, and higher-paying occupations, while relegating women to vulnerable workplace positions, making them more susceptible to stigmatization (Zhu, Konrad, Jiao, 2016 ). The stigmatization of women encompasses everyday stereotypes such as "leftover women" and "mannish women", as well as workplace stereotypes including "exchange of power and sex" and "maintaining favorable relationships with male colleagues". Scholars have primarily examined women's responses to stigmatization through the perspectives of social status and resource endowment. When women occupy a low social status and possess limited control over resources, they tend to respond to stigmatization with silence, passive acceptance, and submissive avoidance. In contrast, when women hold higher status, possess the authority to voice their opinions, and demonstrate a strong sense of self-efficacy, they are more likely to react with anger towards stigmatization and adopt active resistance strategies. This may even lead them to engage in assertive or confrontational behaviors that could provoke backlash from others (Folkman & Lazaru, 1988). For instance, these individuals might disregard objective facts and express themselves vehemently in an effort to defend their rights and assert their status (Folkman & Lazaru, 1988). It is evident that women with different characteristics across varying occupational environments exhibit diverse responses to stigmatization; however, there remains a lack of comprehensive research examining how these responses influence women's career development in the workplace. Most analyses regarding the impact of women's stigma perceptions on their career trajectories have been conducted from the perspective of stigma perpetrators. For instance, studies have focused on the negative impact of managers' stereotypes on women's career advancement (Lekchiri, Crowder, Schnerre, Eversole, 2019 ), and the negative impact of spouses' biases on women's work prosperity (Susilo, Yuniashri, Handrito, 2024). The research subjects in stigmatization studies tend to be relatively homogeneous, often focusing on specific groups (such as left-behind children and divorced young adults) or particular occupations (such as doctors and tour guides). These studies predominantly emphasize everyday life contexts rather than workplace environments. There is a notable lack of research that centers on working women as primary subjects to examine how stigma perception influences individual motivations and career-related decisions. Furthermore, integrated research examining both stigma perception and the glass cliff phenomenon remains limited. 1.3 The concept of workplace status competition and its motivation formation In a hierarchical environment, status encompasses resources, power, wealth, and reputation. It represents the subjective assessment of an individual's social rank based on the prevailing values within a social hierarchy. Status is an honor conferred upon an individual through collective recognition and serves as a social aspiration that individuals strive to attain (Weber, 1978 ; Koski, Xie, Olson, 2015 ). Within a workplace context, workplace status refers to the level of respect and admiration exhibited by colleagues towards an individual following an evaluation of that individual's contributions to the organization (Bendersky & Pai, 2018 ). Workplace status significantly influences the trajectory of employees' career trajectories and is closely associated with various factors such as subjective well-being, job satisfaction, commitment levels, team morale, and performance (Willer & Robb, 2009; Janssen & Gao, 2015 ), exhibiting instrumental social value, contextuality, multi-channel sources, and dynamism (Weber, 1978 ). Possessing workplace status enables individuals to attain dominant power and reputational influence. Consequently, the pursuit of status can be categorized into two distinct types of motives: one involves seeking control over the resources associated with that status, while the other relates to spiritual aspirations such as the respect symbolized by status (Singh R K, Singh S, 2022 ). The former motive represents a dominant status competition motive, often referred to as an egoistic motive, which is linked to long-term forced endurance (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009 ). Individuals with this motive prioritize the rights and resources conferred by their status and view it primarily as a means to exert control over others or circumstances. For instance, they may engage in behaviors aimed at dominating, threatening, suppressing, or excluding others; such actions undermine fairness and reduce opportunities for collaboration and resource sharing (Berger, Cohen, Zelditch, 1972 ). In contrast, the latter motive embodies a prosocial motivation for status competition. This motivation is characterized by altruism, a sense of responsibility, and self-efficacy. It has been shown to enhance organizational performance, foster team innovation, and facilitate knowledge sharing (Evans, 1954 ; Lam A & Lambermont-Ford, 2010 ). Individuals driven by this motive exhibit traits such as inclusiveness, friendliness, and mutual assistance, while prioritizing prestige, honor, and external recognition to fulfill their psychological needs (Bendersky & Hays, 2012 ). The division of social roles between men and women within the social environment has resulted in a significant disparity in women's social status and subsequent stigmatization. This perception of stigmatization activates varying status needs among women (Anderson, Hildreth, Howland, 2015 ), which in turn leads to diverse motives for status competition (Hays, 2012 ). Existing research has primarily focused on the effects of status competition motives on organizational performance, individual innovation, and knowledge sharing. However, there remains a relative paucity of integrated studies examining the interplay between status competition motives and women's workplace psychology and decision-making processes. 1.4 Review of the literature related to imposter syndrome 1.4.1 Concept of imposter syndrome Based on the observation that women tend to attribute their achievements to factors such as accidental mistakes, luck, or a desire to avoid excessive attention, Clance and Imes defined this phenomenon as impostor syndrome (Clance & Imes, 1978 ), which is conceptualized as a tendency towards self-doubt and self-negation. Individuals experiencing this syndrome underestimate their abilities, accomplishments, and personal worth, are prone to anxiety and restlessness, conflate success with failure, and exhibit heightened sensitivity to others' evaluations. Despite meeting or exceeding external criteria for success, women often attribute their achievements to external causes while internalizing failures in an effort to maintain a favorable impression or protect their self-esteem. This pattern of cognition and behavior can lead to persistent feelings of subjective incompetence and self-doubt (Clance, 1985 ; Kruger & Dunning, 1999 ). The academic community has extended the concept of impostor syndrome from psychology into the field of management and has found that executives in many prominent organizations also exhibit varying degrees of this phenomenon. 1.4.2 Formation factors of imposter syndrome and its measurement Research on impostor syndrome among working women has not yet received sufficient scholarly attention. Western scholars suggest that impostor syndrome is associated with resource depletion, self-attribution biases, self-deprecation, feelings of inferiority, and fear of future failures. In contrast, Chinese scholars have primarily focused on non-enterprise employees such as students and nurses. The development of impostor syndrome in women is linked to a lack of familial support, societal stereotypes regarding gender roles, and expectations related to family responsibilities (Clance, Dingman, Reviere, Stober, 1995 ). Additionally, other researchers argue that it may be associated with perfectionist tendencies (Dudau, 2014 ; Vergauwe, De Fruyt, Feys, Anseel, Wille, 2015 ), negative self-perception (Leary, Patton, Orlando, Wagoner Funk, 2000 ), avoidance-oriented coping behaviors, and diminished self-efficacy (Hutchins, Penney, Sublett, 2018 ; Cowman & Ferrari, 2002 ). Impostor syndrome can lead to self-defeating behaviors, ultimately resulting in decreased self-efficacy, lower leadership motivation, and impaired innovative capabilities (Kets de Vries, 2005 ; Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, Harms, 2008 ). It also negatively affects other organizational members and undermines organizational performance and long-term development. Given prior findings on the impact of impostor syndrome on leadership motivation, this study posits that impostor syndrome influences the formation of women's decision-making motivation in stigmatizing contexts. Subsequent research will focus on stigmatizing situations and explore how impostor syndrome affects women's motivation to pursue high-risk leadership positions.Measurement tools for impostor syndrome include Harvey's HIPS scale and Clance's CIPS scale (Harvey, 1981). Scholars regard the CIPS scale as more appropriate and it has been widely adopted in empirical studies. 1.5 Review of the literature related to workplace exclusion 1.5.1 Concept and form of expression of workplace exclusion Frictions and disputes often arise during interpersonal interactions aimed at acquiring resources and emotional value. Williams ( 2007 ) was the first to define "ostracism" as "an individual's perception of the degree to which they are ignored or rejected by others in society". When this concept is applied to the workplace, it gives rise to the notion of "workplace ostracism," which refers to an individual's subjective experience of being marginalized by external groups or specific individuals within a professional setting. Such experiences can lead ostracized individuals to suffer from anxiety, unhappiness, and other adverse psychological states (Ferris, Brown, Berry, Lian, 2008 ). Furthermore, workplace ostracism has been shown to diminish work performance and increase tendencies toward job turnover or counterproductive behaviors (Hitlan & Noel, 2009 ). Workplace ostracism can intensify knowledge hiding, which undermines team cohesion and collaboration. Moreover, the emotional exhaustion resulting from workplace ostracism can spill over into family life, negatively affecting personal relationships and well-being (Jun, Liu, Ho, et al., 2013). 1.5. 2 Influencing factors and measures of workplace ostracism Scholars have investigated the formation of workplace ostracism from various perspectives, including personality traits, organizational structure, and organizational culture (Zhang & Dai, 2015 ). Discussions regarding the consequences of workplace ostracism primarily emphasize its effects on helping behaviors, turnover intentions, voice behaviors, and related outcomes. Integrated research in occupational psychology predominantly focuses on the negative repercussions of workplace ostracism, such as its contribution to diminished self-confidence, heightened stress levels, and adverse emotional states. In comparable positions, women typically hold lower job ranks and receive lower salaries than their male counterparts, particularly within nation-owned enterprises (Iwasaki & Ma, 2020 ). They also encounter the promotion challenges associated with the "glass ceiling". Under the compounded influences of workplace ostracism and perceived stigmatization, women's professional mindsets may foster subjective initiative. However, there has been relatively limited exploration into how workplace ostracism affects the promotion motivations of female employees. Regarding measurement tools used in this field of study, a widely employed scale is that developed by Ferris et al., which includes items such as "At work, my colleagues do not take me seriously and ignore me," and "At work, others do not pay much attention to my greetings" (Ferris et al., 2008 ). Jiang et al. subsequently adapted this scale to align with Chinese cultural contexts (Jiang, Zhang, Wang, Lu, Xu, 2011). 2. Theoretical basis and research hypothesis 2.1 Theoretical basis Weiss and Cropanzano proposed the theory of emotional events in 1996 (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996 ). This theory systematically explores the relationship between emotional events, emotional reactions, and the attitudes and behaviors that individuals experience in the workplace. It emphasizes the structure, inducement, and consequences of an individual's emotional responses at work. Work-related events trigger individual emotional responses, which in turn shape attitudes and influence behavior as well as work performance. There are two pathways through which emotional responses affect behavior: One involves a direct impact on employee behavior. For instance, when employees feel frustrated or anxious, they may engage in negative behaviors such as tardiness or absenteeism. The second pathway involves an indirect effect on behavior by influencing employees' work attitudes. For example, the prolonged accumulation of negative emotions can lead to decreased job satisfaction and organizational commitment among employees, ultimately resulting in turnover intentions. In recent years, growing attention has been paid to employees' emotional experiences due to their significant impact on individual work attitudes and behaviors. The theory of emotional events provides robust theoretical support for studying individual emotions within organizational contexts. Female perceived stigma in the workplace is regarded as an emotional event that elicits negative emotional responses. Stigma perception enables female employees to pursue workplace status and power preference in order to challenge stereotypes and gain access to the means and resources necessary to reverse adverse circumstances. Women’s status competitive motivation may be moderate or aggressive, thereby influencing their willingness to pursue potentially high-risk leadership positions. In this study, we examined the emotional event associated with female stigma perception and found that the pathway "female stigma perception → status competitive motivation → tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions" aligns with the theoretical framework of "work event → emotion → attitude/behavior". 2.2 Study hypothesis 2.2.1 Relationship between female stigma perception and the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions Women are frequently characterized by labels such as "gentle and submissive" "weak and dependent" "having low stress resistance" and "unable to grasp the overall situation". These stereotypes contribute to the perception that women lack essential workplace traits such as "risk-taking" and "competitiveness", which are traditionally associated with men (Santoniccolo, Trombetta, Paradiso, 2023 ). Certain societal groups impose disciplinary norms on women, resulting in a diminished entrepreneurial spirit and leadership ambition in professional settings and consequently leading to missed career advancement opportunities. Social stereotypes not only influence individuals' behavioral responses in the workplace but also significantly influence the positioning and developmental trajectories of women's roles (Lepine, van Dyne, 2002). Research on gender differences in work effort indicates that gender plays a crucial role in shaping individuals' work engagement and efficiency (Asadullah, Ul Haq, Wahba, Hashmi, Kim, Hwang, 2021 ). The societal solidification of work-related skills along gender lines, coupled with social expectations that women should primarily fulfill familial roles, compels them to prioritize family responsibilities. This prioritization ultimately reduces their productivity levels, limits their job opportunities, and makes promotions more challenging compared to their male counterparts (Susilo, Yuniashri, Handrito, 2024; Nesti, 2022 ). With societal advancements and the development of the Internet, women have gained access to greater learning opportunities and platforms for personal growth. They are increasingly recognizing that gender-based divisions of labor and rigid labels become stigmatizing markers perceived inferiority relative to men. According to emotional events theory, stigmatization acts as a triggering factor. The negative emotions arising from stigma conflict with individuals’ fundamental need for acceptance and belongingness (Vuuren & Aldersey, 2020 ). Women are generally more adept at perceiving risks compared to men (Weber, Ann-Renée Blais, Betz, 2002 ). With a strong affirmation of their self-worth, women who have long confronted negative stereotypes exhibit greater adaptability and resilience. As a result, they are more likely to aspire to succeed in high-risk leadership roles (Steele & Aronson, 1995 ). In conclusion, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1: Female stigma perception has a positive impact on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. 2.2.2 Mediating role of status competitive motivation Social status determines the extent to which an individual can influence resource allocation, conflict resolution, and group decision-making (van Kleef & Cheng, 2020 ). Individuals with lower status have no choice but to relinquish their interests and submit to those with higher status within the group. People's need for status gives rise to status competition motives (Huberman, Loch, Onculer, 2004 ). According to the emotional event theory, people's emotional responses to specific events can be diverse and multidimensional, and negative emotions may trigger defensive and aggressive motives (Frijda, 2007 ). For example, in the face of stigmatization, individuals in the workplace may exhibit two types of status competition motives: the prestige status competition motive, which is driven by the desire for "friendliness" and "respect" from others, and the dominant status competition motive, which is centered around "power control". Those with the former type of motive do not clearly perceive themselves as being stigmatized or feel a significant sense of disparity in resource deprivation in their environment. This emotional state leads them to prioritize building positive interpersonal relationships and gaining social recognition (Ryan & Haslame, 2005). Their pursuit is not the material resources associated with status, but rather the psychological satisfaction derived from being respected and valued. Consequently, their approach to workplace status competition tends to be peaceful and cooperative. In contrast, individuals with the latter motive perceive significant unfairness and internal imbalance due to status disparities. They are more eager to strive for status-related resources and consciously seize career opportunities to gain control over resources and influence over others (Kim, Jung, Na, 2022 ). Therefore, the forming process of workplace status competition is more intense. Based on the above, the following hypotheses are proposed: H2: Different degrees of women's stigma perception will lead to different status competition motives. H2a: Women with a low stigma perception are more inclined to develop high prestige status competition motives. H2b: Women with a high stigma perception are more inclined to develop high dominant status competition motives. High-risk leadership positions entail turbulence and crises, as well as higher status and more abundant resources. Individuals with prestige-oriented status competition motives are driven by the desire to gain respect and maintain self-esteem. They show friendliness and inclusiveness, are willing to help others, and exhibit outstanding qualities, thereby achieving high value and broad recognition within organizational contexts (Singh R K, Singh S, 2022 ). Based on the "crisis-women" stereotype, high-risk leadership positions offer promotion opportunities for women (Ryan & Haslame, 2005). However, such positions involve significant hidden risks. Women often lack adequate recognition and institutional support (Ryan & Haslam, 2007 ), and the likelihood of achieving tangible rewards is low. Essentially, these kinds of appointments constitute "symbolic management". Individuals who choose high-risk leadership positions may fear that failure in such environments could damage their professional reputations; consequently, they may hesitate to embrace these job-related risks. Female individuals with dominant status competition motives tend to prioritize the power and rewards associated with status (Bothner, Kim, Smith, 2012 ). They perceive themselves as occupying disadvantaged positions and are strongly motivated to change this imbalance. They seek to exert control over resources and influence over others (Kim, Jung, Na, 2022 ). Although the glass cliff phenomenon suggests that women's managerial appointments may culminate in setbacks or failures, those with dominant status competition motives view such risks not as threats, but as pathways to success and recognition. Based on the above, the following hypotheses are proposed: H3: Different types of status competition motives have differential impacts on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. H3a: Prestige status competition motives have a negative impact on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. H3b: Dominant status competition motives have a positive impact on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. 2.2.3 Moderating role of imposter syndrome The impostor syndrome is characterized by a tendency toward self-negation and is more commonly observed in women's self-evaluations (Fleischhauer, Wossidlo, Michael, Enge, 2021 ). Successful women may experience feelings of self-doubt, exhibit intolerance for failure, and prefer to avoid excessive attention. These factors can lead to a decline in self-efficacy and subsequently diminish leadership motives,, which refers to the capacity to influence others (Burke, 1991 ). Women nominated for high-risk leadership positions are expected to demonstrate exceptional capabilities in their work performance. They often engage in critical self-evaluation as a means of maintaining a positive image and protecting their self-esteem. Alternatively, they may shy away from potential opportunities and achievements due to fear of external evaluations (Want & Kleitman, 2006 ), thereby attempting to alleviate the psychological pressure resulting from excessively high expectations imposed by others (Clance & Imes, 1978 ). Based on the aforementioned considerations, we propose the following hypothesis: H4: The impostor syndrome negatively moderates the relationship between women's stigma perception and prestige status competition motives. The higher the individual's tendency towards self-negation, the more the negative relationship between women's stigma perception and prestige status competition motives is weakened. 2.2.4 Moderating role of workplace ostracism When objectively existing issues such as information blockage, rejection, neglect, exclusion, and resource depletion arise within an organization, individuals are subjected to significant stressors (Williams, 2007 ). Society tends to prioritize women's roles in life, emotions, family responsibilities, and childbearing over their workplace value and status (Shi Xinjie & Shen Yu, 2023), leading to a diminished voice for women in professional settings. For instance, leaders often place greater importance on the suggestions of male employees or preferentially assign critical tasks and training opportunities to men, making women feel despised, neglected, and even excluded in an already disharmonious workplace atmosphere. Women who experience stigmatization may find that their negative emotions are intensified by the atmosphere of workplace ostracism; consequently, they may adopt strategies aimed at mitigating the loss of resources or opportunities (Major & O'Brien, 2005 ). Such strategies can manifest as irrational or aggressive behaviors. For example, they might engage in "tit for tat" actions as a means of self-protection while suppressing altruistic tendencies, thereby developing motives related to competition for dominant status. Based on the above, the following hypothesis is proposed: H5: Workplace ostracism positively moderates the relationship between women's stigma perception and competition motives for dominant status. Specifically, higher levels of workplace ostracism will strengthen the positive relationship between women's stigma perceptions and their competition motives for achieving dominant status. 2.3 Model construction Through a comprehensive review of relevant literature and grounded in the glass cliff phenomenon, this study employs the theory of emotional events as its theoretical foundation to elucidate the internal mechanisms among key variables. It clarifies the relationship between women's stigma perception and their inclination to pursue high-risk leadership positions. Furthermore, it examines the mediating effect of status competition motives in this relationship, while simultaneously incorporating impostor syndrome and workplace ostracism as moderating factors. The theoretical model proposed in this research is illustrated in Fig. 1 . 3 Study design and data collection 3.1 Questionnaire design In this study, the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions is measured using scenario-based items. This approach enables participants to feel engaged in the decision-making process and gain a clear understanding of the content being assessed by the items. At the same time, it enhances the contextual relevance of the measurement to the research focus. The questionnaire design draws upon widely recognized and well-established scales. During the survey process, necessary explanations are provided to participants. Before the official distribution of the questionnaire, a small-scale pre-survey was conducted first. The reliability and validity of the pre-survey data were analyzed using SPSS software. Based on satisfactory results from this analysis, further refinements to the questionnaire items were made. To minimize careless responding, reverse-coded items were incorporated into the measurement scales for each variable to ensure the accuracy of the survey results. 3.2 Variable measurement The scale design employed in this study utilized the Likert 7-point scoring method (1 = complete disagreement, 7 = complete agreement). The measurement of women's stigma perception draws not only on the scale developed by Pinel et al. (Pinel, 1999 ), but also on the scale of female leaders' stigma perception developed by Chen et al. (Chen, Li, Chen, et al., 2022). This measurement includes items relevant to workplace scenarios such as: "People seem to interpret all of my behaviors based on my identity as a woman" "There is a belief that women tend to focus excessively on minor details and are unable to maintain an overall perspective or view problems comprehensively," and "For female leaders who achieve promotions, it is often assumed that their advancement results from factors unrelated to their competencies". The prestige status competition motive and the dominant status competition motive are adapted from Cheng et al.'s dominance-prestige status scale (Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, Henrich, 2013 ). In consideration of the Chinese cultural context and organizational environment, the measurement of prestige status competition motive includes items such as: "I hope my unique abilities and talents are recognized by others" "I hope to be respected rather than feared by my colleagues" "I will successfully persuade others through equal communication". The measurement of dominant status competition motive consists of first-person perspective items that directly assess the construct, including: "I try to control others" "I often strive to achieve goals regardless of others' opinions" "My colleagues know it is best to let me do things my own way". The measurement of the impostor syndrome draws on the characteristic scale developed by Clance et al. (Clance & Imes, 1978 ), which involves doubts and concerns about one's own abilities, the attribution of achievements to luck, and the inability to acknowledge good performance or accept praise. Specifically, it includes items such as: "I try my best to avoid being evaluated by others and am also afraid of others' evaluations" "It is very difficult for me to accept and identify with others' compliments on my intelligence, talents or achievements" "I am worried that I actually haven't done well or won't be able to meet their expectations of me in the future". The measurement of workplace ostracism draws on the workplace ostracism scale applicable to Chinese employees developed by Jiang et al. (Jiang, Zhang, Wang, Lu, Xu, 2011). Items with favorable reliability coefficients were selected, including: "Colleagues are more likely to ignore the opinions or suggestions of some employees" "When employees encounter problems and consult colleagues, colleagues ignore them or give perfunctory answers""When employees achieve results at work, colleagues do not offer congratulations" and so on. 3.3 Data collection and analysis 3.3.1 Demographic information of the survey sample The research participants in this study were female employees working in Chinese enterprises. A total of 283 questionnaires were collected. After excluding responses with a large number of missing values, those completed irregularly, and those failing the validity check, 278 valid questionnaires were obtained. The effective response rate was 98.23%, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the subsequent data analysis. Regarding the distribution of the sample, in terms of gender, all participants were female, consistent with the target population. In terms of age, individuals aged 21 to 30 constituted the largest group (52.2%), followed by those aged 41 to 50 (18.3%), indicating a relatively broad age range within the sample. With respect to educational attainment, the proportion of those with a bachelor's degree was the highest (31.7%), while those with a high school diploma or below accounted for only 18.7%, reflecting a generally high level of education among respondents, and enabling them to fully comprehend and accurately respond to the questionnaire items. In terms of work experience, employees with less than three years of work accounted for the largest proportion (65.1%). Regarding job positions, those in grassroots management and middle management accounted for 33.8%, and those in senior management accounted for 8.3%, indicating that the sample encompasses diverse job levels and is capable of providing important information. 3.3.2 Normal test of variables In the normal test of female stigma perception(X), prestige status competition motive(M1), dominant status competitive motivation(M2), workplace ostracism(Z1), imposter syndrome(Z2), and choice tendency of high-risk leadership position (Y), the absolute value of skewness coefficient is less than 3, and the absolute value of kurtosis coefficient is less than 10. These values meet the criteria for normal distribution, allowing subsequent data analysis to proceed. 3.3.3 Test of Common Method Bias The Harman single-factor test was used to conduct a principal component factor analysis on all the items of the main variables. The variance explained rate of the first factor before rotation is 34.236%, which meet the requirement of being less than 40%. This indicates that the common method bias in this study is not severe. 3.3.4 Confirmatory factor analysis The factor model composed of six variables reached the standard fit level (χ 2 / df = 1.063 0.9, CFI = 0.995 > 0.9, TLI = 0.995 > 0.9, SRMR = 0.037 < 0.1, RMSEA = 0.015 < 0.1), indicating that no single factor explained most of the variation, and the data were better (see Table 1 ). Table 1 Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Indicators Common Indicators χ2 df χ2/df GFI RMSEA CFI NFI NNFI Standard Value - - 0.9 0.9 > 0.9 > 0.9 Value 510.043 480 1.063 0.906 0.015 0.995 0.924 0.995 Other Indicators TLI IFI PGFI PNFI PCFI SRMR RMSEA 90% CI Standard Value > 0.9 > 0.9 > 0.5 > 0.5 > 0.5 < 0.1 - Value 0.995 0.995 0.775 0.840 0.905 0.037 0.013 ~ 0.026 According to Table 2 , the square root values of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of all variables are above 0.58 and exceed the maximum absolute value of the inter-factor correlation coefficients, which proves that the six factors have good discriminant validity and provides a statistical basis for the subsequent analysis. Table 2 Results of AVE and CR Factor AVE CR Factor1 0.632 0.932 Factor2 0.647 0.879 Factor3 0.587 0.850 Factor4 0.670 0.924 Factor5 0.656 0.930 Factor6 0.658 0.885 4 Data analysis and hypothesis test 4.1 Description of statistics and correlation analysis Descriptive statistics and correlation of variables are as follows (see Table 3 ). Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Variables and Correlation Analysis between Variables average value standard error 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Age (1) 2.820 1.119 1 Education (2) 2.885 1.317 0.015 1 Work Experience(3) 2.795 1.449 0.267 ** 0.012 1 Position (4) 2.338 1.297 0.253 ** -0.043 0.302 ** 1 X Female Stigma Perception (5) 4.808 1.381 0.002 -0.052 0.158 ** 0.067 1 M1 Prestige Status Competition Motive(6) 4.875 1.504 -0.136 * -0.019 -0.219 ** -0.157 ** -0.552 ** 1 M2 Dominant Status Competition Motive (7) 4.387 1.524 0.138 * -0.042 0.292 ** 0.160 ** 0.462 ** -0.218 ** 1 Z1 Workplace Ostracism (8) 4.415 1.595 0.083 0.029 0.167 ** 0.045 0.371 ** -0.285 ** 0.319 ** 1 Z2 Impostor Syndrome (9) 4.654 1.503 0.162 ** 0.004 -0.036 0.123 * -0.315 ** 0.398 ** -0.127 * -0.207 ** 1 Y Choice Tendency of High-risk Leadership Position (10) 4.124 1.568 -0.009 -0.005 0.099 0.085 0.561 ** -0.536 ** 0.435 ** 0.267 ** -0.301 ** 1 Note: * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 As shown in the above table, stigma perception is positively correlated with dominant status competition motive, workplace ostracism, and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. Female stigma perception was negatively associated with prestige status competition motive and imposter syndrome. Prestige status competitive motive was positively correlated with imposter syndrome and negatively correlated with the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. Dominant status competition motive is positively correlated with workplace ostracism and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. These preliminary results support the feasibility of proceeding to the next stage of regression analysis. 4.2 Hypothesis test 4.2.1 Direct effect test Firstly, the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions was selected as the dependent variable. Demographic and professional background variables, including age, education, work experience, and position, were added to the first layer of independent variables, and the female stigma perception was added to the second layer of independent variables. The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 4 . Table 4 Results of the Regression Analysis Variable Prestige Status Competitive Motive Dominant Status Competitive Motive Tendency to Choose High-risk Leadership Positions M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 Controlled Variable Age -0.089 -0.124 -0.150 0.072 0.100 0.082 -0.034 -0.123 -0.078 -0.105 -0.059 Education -0.022 -0.054 -0.025 -0.049 -0.023 -0.063 0.032 -0.016 0.013 0.020 0.037 Work Experience -0.181 -0.091 -0.067 0.272 0.198 0.183 0.000 -0.005 -0.032 -0.026 -0.048 Position -0.103 -0.086 -0.112 0.079 0.065 0.069 0.066 0.027 0.036 0.049 0.051 Independent Variable Female Stigma Perception -0.583 *** -0.531 *** 0.472 *** 0.455 *** 0.634 *** 0.430 *** 0.519 *** Mediating Variable Prestige Status Competitive Motive -0.569 *** -0.350 *** Dominant Status Competitive Motive 0.460 *** 0.244 *** Moderating Variable Impostor Syndrome 0.262 *** Workplace Ostracism 0.143 ** Interaction Terms Female Stigma Perception * Impostor Syndrome 0.196 *** Female Stigma Perception * Workplace Ostracism 0.179 *** ΔR² 0.062 0.279 0.076 0.095 0.177 0.061 0.303 0.279 0.075 0.181 0.041 F 4.481 ** 28.045 *** 36.887 *** 7.173 *** 20.357 *** 20.811 *** 25.375 *** 22.758 *** 29.198 *** 13.276 *** 25.309 *** Note: * p < 0.05, * * p < 0.01, * * * p < 0.001 In the multicollinearity test, the VIF values are all below 5, indicating that there is no multicollinearity issues. The D-W values are approximately 2, suggesting no substantial autocorrelation. From the regression results, the coefficient for the effect of female stigma perception on the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions was β = 0.634 (p < 0.001). Thus, H1 was supported, confirming a positive relationship between female stigma perception and the choice tendency of high-risk leadership roles. 4.2.2 Test of the mediation effect of status competitive motive In Table 4 , to examine the mediating effects of different status competition motives, prestige status competition motive and dominant status competition motive were incorporated into the regression models. When the prestige-based status competition motive was added to the model, the negative impact of the female stigma perception on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions was weakened but remained significant (M9, β= -0.350, p < 0.001), thus H2a and H3a were supported. After the adding the dominant status competition motive, the positive impact of the female stigma perception on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions weakened but remained significant as well (M11, β = 0.244, p < 0.001), thereby H2b and H3b were supported. This study further employs the bootstrap sampling method. According to the procedure for mediation analysis proposed by Wen Zhonglin et al. (2005), in the first step, taking the female stigma perception as the independent variable and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions as the dependent variable, a regression is conducted to test whether the female stigma perception significantly predicts the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. In the second step, the female stigma perception is set as the independent variable, and the prestige status competition motive and the dominant status competition motive are respectively set as the dependent variables for independent tests to examine whether the predictive effect of the the female stigma perception on the two types of status competition motives is significant. In the third step, the female stigma perception and the two status competition motives are set as the independent variables, and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions is set as the dependent variable for testing to examine whether the predictive effects of the two main variables on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions are significant. The results are shown in Tables 5 and 6 . Table 5 Results of Bootstrap-analysis of the Mediating Effect of Prestige Status Competitive Motive Item B SE 95% CI Overall effect : Female stigma perception→Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions 0.6365 0.0566 [0.5252,0.7478] Direct effect : Female stigma perception→Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions 0.4323 0.0642 [0.3059,0.5587] Indirect effect Female stigma perception →Prestige status competitive motivation→Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions 0.2042 0.0369 [0.1366,0.2800] Table 6 Results of Bootstrap-analysis of the Mediating Effect of Dominant Status Competitive Motive Item B SE 95% CI Overall effect : Female stigma perception →Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions 0.6365 0.0566 [0.5252,0.7478] Direct effect : Female stigma perception→ Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions 0.5191 0.0620 [0.3970,0.6412] Indirect effect Female stigma perception →Dominant position competitive motivation→ Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions 0.0615 0.1823 [0.0615,0.1823] According to the bootstrap test, the 95% confidence interval of prestige status competitive motivation and dominant status competitive motivation are [0.1366,0.2800] and [0.0615,0.1823], respectively, with neither interval including zero. This indicates that both motives serve as significant intermediary role in the relationship between female stigma perception and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions, thereby supporting Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b. 4.2.3 Test of moderating effect (1) The moderating effect of impostor syndrome on female stigma perception and prestige status competitive motivation With the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions as the dependent variable, control variables were added to the model, followed by independent variable (female stigma perception), mediating variable (prestige status competitive motivation) and moderating variable (impostor syndrome), and interaction term (female stigma perception * impostor syndrome) was included in the model. The results are shown in Table 4 . Under the premise that some factors are controlled, the female stigma perception still significantly affects the choice tendency to high-risk leadership positions. After adding the interaction term of the female stigma perception and imposter syndrome, the regression coefficient of the interaction term remains significant(M3, β = 0.196, p < 0.001).This indicates that the first half of the mediating path through which the female stigma perception affects the choice tendency to high-risk leadership positions is moderated by imposter syndrome. The moderating effect is shown in Fig. 2 : When the level of imposter syndrome is low, the slope of the straight line is relatively large, and the negative relationship between the female stigma perception and the prestige status competitive motive remains significant. When the level of imposter syndrome is relatively high, there is still a negative relationship between the female stigma perception and the prestige status competitive motive, but the influence is weakened. Therefore, Hypothesis H4 is supported. (2) Testing of the Moderating Effect of Workplace Ostracism on the Female Stigma Perception and the Dominant Status Competitive Motive On the basis of taking the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions as the dependent variable, control variables were added in sequence, followed by the independent variable (the female stigma perception), the mediating variable (the dominant status competitive motive), and the moderating variable (workplace ostracism). Finally, the interaction term of the independent variable and the moderating variable (the female stigma perception * workplace ostracism) was incorporated. The results are shown in Table 4 . Under the premise that some factors are controlled, the female stigma perception still significantly affects the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. After the interaction term of the female stigma perception and workplace ostracism was added to the model, the regression coefficient of the interaction term remained significant (M6, β = 0.179, p < 0.001). This indicates that the influence path of the female stigma perception on the dominant status competitive motive is moderated by workplace ostracism. The moderating effect is shown in Fig. 3 : When the level of workplace ostracism is low, the slope of the straight line is relatively small, and the positive relationship between the female stigma perception and the dominant status competitive motive remains significant. When the level of workplace ostracism is relatively high, there is still a positive relationship between the female stigma perception and the dominant status competitive motive, and the influence is strengthened. Thus, Hypothesis H5 is supported. 5 Conclusions and Outlook 5.1 Study conclusions Grounded in the theory of emotional events, this study examines the influence mechanism linking female stigma perception to the tendency to pursue high-risk leadership positions among female employees. It introduces status competitive motive as an mediating variable, and explores how this indirect relationship is moderated by imposter syndrome and workplace ostracism. Finally, the conclusions are as follows: 5.1.1 The logical chain of emotion-behavior has strong applicability Female stigma perception has a positive predictive effect on the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions, supporting the core viewpoint of Emotional Events Theory regarding the correspondence between emotional experiences and behavioral responses. When confronted with stigmatization, women experience different emotional stress responses such as anger, fear, and sadness, prompting them to adopt different motivational strategies to counteract the negative consequences of stigma. Specifically, they tend to evaluate promotion opportunities in high-risk leadership roles through the lens of their internal motivations. As women ascend to higher positions and gain greater access to more resources and decision-making power, those who perceive stigma are increasingly inclined to engage in active resistance rather than passive endurance. This psychological shift fosters the development of a motive for dominant status competition. Building upon research conducted by scholars like LePine and Van Dyne ( 2001 ) concerning factors that influence individual workplace behavioral responses, this study further clarifies how subjective factors emerge as significant driving forces behind women's behavioral choices in contexts marked by stigmatization. In contrast to previous studies that primarily examined general workplace behaviors, this research explores the specific mechanisms underlying women's motivation-behavior choices in stigmatized contexts. It offers offers a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for understanding women's tendencies toward selecting high-risk leadership positions. 5.1.2 Individual behavior differences are closely related to individuals’ motive Women with a low stigma perception tend to pursue harmonious interpersonal relationships in a more gentle way through moral strength and inner recognition, emphasizing respect and recognition as forms of social status. Given that high-risk leadership positions represent significant challenges characterized by limited support and low perceived chances of success, women with low stigma perception are more likely to avoid such roles. In contrast, women with high stigma perception, when subjected to high social pressure and negative judgments, are prone to feeling a sense of unfairness. They place greater emphasis on the tangible resources and benefits associated with status, perceive status competition as a zero-sum game, and view other participants as threats to their own interests. Consequently, they are enthusiastic about grasping power and status in their hands, even at the cost of social approval. Different levels of stigma perception lead to different status motives among women due to their differences in cognitive thinking, thereby affecting their choices tendency of high-risk leadership positions. Specifically, women with a high stigma perception are more likely to develop a dominant status motive, and the dominant status motive has a positive effect on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. Women with a low stigma perception are more likely to develop a prestige status motive, and the prestige status motive has a negative effect on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. These findings support the view in the social comparison theory that individuals engage in competitive behaviors to acquire resources and elevate their status when confronted with external pressure and negative evaluations. Furthermore, on the basis of Huberman et al.'s ( 2004 ) research on status competitive motives, this study reveals that stigmatization functioning as a distinctive situational factor, exerts a complex influence on the formation of women's status competitive motives. 5.1.3 Individual traits have a huge impact on their behavior Imposter syndrome negatively moderates the relationship between women's stigma perception and the prestige status competition motive. Specifically, the stronger an individual’s tendency toward self-doubt, the more weakened the negative relationship between women's stigma perception and the prestige status competitive motive. This finding aligns with seminal work on imposter syndrome by Clance and Imes ( 1978 ), which suggests that individuals experiencing stigma perception may struggle to acknowledge their own abilities and accomplishments due to internalized self-negation, leading them to avoid external evaluations from others.When assessing the degree of harm caused by the stigmatization phenomenon to women, two critical aspects need to be considered. First, this harm directly stems from the stigmatization phenomenon itself. Second, women's internal motives influence their coping responses to the harm of stigmatization. Individuals with high levels of imposter syndrome exhibit a pronounced tendency toward self-negation. They are prone to attributing mistakes and failures to themselves and have difficulty facing up to their own abilities and achievements. Even in the face of objective success, they remain reluctant to accept positive evaluations from others. For these women with imposter syndrome, external praise does not serve as encouragement but instead functions as a source of anxiety. Consequently, under conditions of low stigma perception, the likelihood of developing a prestige status competition motive is significantly reduced among women with strong imposter syndrome. 5.1.4 The hidden negative elements of the workplace will cause harm to employees Workplace ostracism may not involve obvious verbal attacks or physical conflicts. Instead, it may manifest as implicit behaviors such as social exclusion or the disregard of one’s opinions. Women who experience such treatment may perceive having less influence, being assigned fewer core responsibilities, and receiving limited access to critical training opportunities compared to their male counterparts. These experiences can evoke strong negative emotions, particularly a sense of injustice, which in turn may trigger irrational or aggressive behavioral responses. Therefore, workplace ostracism moderate the relationship between women's stigma perception and the dominant status competitive motive. Specifically, at higher levels of workplace ostracism, the positive association between stigma perception and the dominant status motive becomes stronger, indicating that stigma perception more readily predicts the emergence of this motive under conditions of social exclusion. This finding aligns with the viewpoint of Major & O'Brien ( 2005 ) and further underscores the significant impact of adverse workplace environmental factors on the psychological processes and behavioral tendencies of female employees. 5.2 Management enlightenment 5.2.1 Create a social environment to help women’s career development at the national level With societal advancement, eliminating gender discrimination has become essential for promoting social development. To this end, the government have increasingly integrated the principle of gender equality and related policy measures into national strategies and industrial regulations. By drawing on successful international practices in advancing gender equity, such as enacting equal opportunity legislation, encouraging female students to pursue traditionally male-dominated fields, and implementing welfare initiatives like educational subsidies, low-interest loans, and vocational training programs for women. Additionally, opinions, suggestions, and plans aimed at supporting women's career development are effectively proposed in alignment with China's national conditions. Examples include strengthening collaboration with international organizations, establishing a national women’s career development guidance center, and creating a dedicated gender equality development fund. It is also imperative to increase the proportion of the representation of women in governance roles and the decision-making bodies at all levels, including urban and rural institutions across all levels of Party committees and village committees. This can be achieved through initiatives such as launching a women's political participation exchange project and instituting incentive mechanisms to encourage engagement. In addition, optimizing organizational working mechanisms and workplace environments is crucial for enhancing women's work efficiency while alleviating workplace pressures stemming from excessive family responsibilities through various channels. Practically policy measures include standardizing maternity leave, parental leave, and other childbearing holidays, extending paid paternity leave for men to mitigate the disproportionate employment penalties faced by women, and promoting timely flexible working arrangements and remote work models. Finally, utilizing diverse communication platforms, including online media, film, television, and literature, to highlight the achievements of outstanding women can inspire broader aspirations and strengthen their motivation toward professional success, thereby fostering greater ambition and commitment to career advancement. 5.2.2 Create fair work scenes to show women’s professional ability from the organizational level Organizational managers should acknowledge the capabilities and contributions of women by granting them greater job autonomy, ensuring equal access to training and professional development opportunities, and amplifying their voices in decision-making processes. They should remain attentive and vigilant to subtle forms of workplace ostracism, actively monitoring the psychological well-being of female employees to detect signs of negative emotions or tendencies toward self-doubt. It is essential to offer timely encouragement and access to counseling when female employees encounter difficulties. The increasing complexity of work demands substantial time and effort from female managers. At the same time, due to persistent traditional gender roles and societal expectations for women to assume caregiving responsibilities, women often bear a disproportionate responsibility for family duties. Consequently, both organizations and society should critically reassess the fairness of applying uniform evaluation and promotion standards to male and female employees. There is a pressing need to establish more transparent, equitable, and gender-sensitive criteria for selection and promotion, along with interactive communication mechanisms that support fair competition and intergender collaboration. Furthermore, it is imperative to establish robust supervisory systems and accessible grievance channels, while platforms that enable women to express their perspectives and concerns should be institutionalized. These measures are essential for mitigating the conflict between professional responsibilities and familial obligations, thereby reducing the pressures associated with job retention and career advancement for women. 5.2.3 Create a self-consistent professional attitude towards women’s career aspirations at the individual level Women should cultivate self-confidence and self-worth while actively guarding against the detrimental effects of imposter syndrome. They ought to leverage their unique strengths by understanding others’ feelings and adopting a considerate interpersonal approach, such as empathy, perspective-taking, and emotional sensitivity. These qualities can contribute to shaping a positive organizational image that reflects both internal inclusivity and external social responsibility. Women often demonstrate strong communication and persuasion abilities, attention to detail, and a heightened capacity for inclusion, all of which are instrumental in fostering diverse and cohesive team environments within organizations. Furthermore, women are encouraged to clarify their personal interests, define clear career goals, and pursue independent intellectual and spiritual growth. Concurrently, it is essential to strengthen professional competencies and enhance job-specific skills. Moreover, Women should also develop a strategic awareness of the broader organizational and societal context, including the ability to discern underlying dynamics, embrace calculated risks, manage change effectively, and navigate complex challenges. Given their heightened sensitivity to environmental cues, it is particularly important for women to develop emotional regulation strategies when encountering stigmatization, while maintaining a respectful and collaborative demeanor toward stakeholders throughout their career development. In response to constructive criticism, women should engage in reflective practice to support continuous improvement. At the same time, when confronted with stigmatization or unfair treatment from society, organizations, or family members, women must promptly recognize such challenges and firmly assert their positions to safeguard their legitimate rights and professional interests. 5.3 Limitations and Future Directions From the perspective of female employees, there are still unexplored factors contributing to the formation of the "glass cliff" phenomenon. Similarly, the perception of female stigmatization can also lead to various psychological changes and behavioral outcomes. Future scholars can delve deeper into these underlying causes and external influential factors to further enhance our understanding of the formation mechanisms of the "glass cliff" phenomenon in China. This study did not focus on the impact of specific industries on female employees' perception of stigmatization. However, in reality, the degree of stigmatization perceived by women, as well as its impact, varies significantly across different industries. Future research could therefore consider focusing on more granular conditions, such as specific roles and industries. Consequently, future research designs warrant further optimization and innovation. Declarations Funding Details The authors received the following financial support for the research: the Youth Development Project at the author's university(24SKGC-QT02). Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article. Disclosure statement The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. Data availability statement The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. Author contributions All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. Ethical approval statement This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Review Committee at the author's university on July 11, 2023. The methodologies and procedures employed in this study adhere to universally recognized scientific and ethical standards for research involving human participants, without any ethical controversies. All participants have been explicitly informed about the purpose, procedures, and potential outcomes of the research prior to their involvement. They have voluntarily participated without any form of coercion or undue pressure. This study has strictly followed the ethical guidelines and norms of the aforementioned Ethics Review Committee. Informed consent statement Informed consent was obtained in online written form in September 2023 from all participants in the study prior to data collection. This consent covers participation in the research, the academic analysis of anonymized response data, and the publication of research findings. The consent process was administered directly by members of the research team. As this study involves non-interventional research, all participants were fully informed that their anonymity was guaranteed, the reasons for conducting the research, how their data would be utilized, and that there were no associated risks to participation. Participants were also clearly informed of the study's purpose, procedures, potential benefits, and their right to withdraw consent and discontinue participation at any time without penalty. All explanations and information were provided in a language understandable to the participants. Author Contribution All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. References Aelenei C, Yvette Assilaméhou-Kunz, Iacoviello V, Kulich C. (2020). The Political Glass Cliff: When Left-Wing Orientation Leads to Minority Candidate Choices for Hard-to-Win Seats. European Review of Applied Psychology, 70(3). doi:10.1016/j.erap.2019.100514. Alejandra V, Nora G, González Francisca, Molina Agustín. (2018). Gender and Ageing at Work in Chile: Employment, Working Conditions, Work-Life Balance and Health of Men and Women in an Ageing Workforce. Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 62(4), 475-489. doi:10.1093/annweh/wxy021. Anderson C, Hildreth J A D, Howland L. (2015). Is the Desire for Status a Fundamental Human Motive? A Review of the Empirical Literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574-601. doi:10.1037/a0038781. Anderson C, Kilduff G J. (2009). Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence in Face-to-Face Groups? The Competence-Signaling Effects of Trait Dominance. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 96(2), 491-503. doi:10.1037/a0014201. Asadullah M A, Ul Haq M Z, Wahba K, Hashmi S, Kim H M, Hwang J. (2021). Gender differences and employee performance: Evidence from the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 248-255. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.06.015. Ashby J, Ryan M K, Haslam S A. (2007). Legal Work and the Glass Cliff: Evidence That Women are Preferentially Selected to Lead Problematiccases. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 13(3), 775-794. Beckmann D, Menkhoff L. (2008). Will Women Be Women? Analyzing the Gender Difference among Financial Experts. Kyklos, 61, 364-384. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00406.x. Bendersky C, Hays N A. (2012). Status Conflict in Groups. Organization Science, 23(2), 323-340. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0734. Bendersky C, Pai J. (2018). Status Dynamics.Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1). doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104602. Benenson J F. (2022). Human Females as a Dispersal-Egalitarian Species: A Hypothesis about Women and Status. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 8(4), 433-460. doi:10.1007/s40750-022-00191-x. Berger J, Cohen B P, Zelditch M. (1972). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction[J].American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241. doi:10.2307/2093465. Blais A R, Weber E U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale for Adult Populations. Judgment & Decision Making, 1(1), 33-47.doi:10.1017/S1930297500000334. Bothner M S, Kim Y K, Smith E B. (2012). How Does Status Affect Performance? Status as an Asset vs. Status as a Liability in the PGA and NASCAR. Organization Science, 23(2), 416-433. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0679. Brady D, Isaacs K, Reeves M, Burroway R, Reynolds M. (2011). Sector, Size, Stability, and Scandal: Explaining the Presence of Female Executives in Fortune 500 Firms. Gender in Management, 26(1), 3041-3053. doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2011.08224.x. Burke P J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 836-849. doi:10.2307/2096259. Cardoso P, Marques J F. (2008). Perception of Career Barriers: The Importance of Gender and Ethnic Variables. International Journal for Educational & Vocational Guidance, 8(1), 49-61. doi:10.1007/s10775-008-9135-y. Chen Yuling, Li Xiang, Chen Weizheng, et al. (2022). Scale Development and Impact Validation of Female Leaders' Stigma Consciousness. Human Resources Development of China, 39(08), 6-25. doi:10.16471/j.cnki.11-2822/c.2022.8.001. Cheng J T, Tracy J L, Foulsham T, Kingstone A, Henrich J. (2013). Two Ways to the Top: Evidence That Dominance and Prestige are Distinct yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 104(1), 103-125. doi:10.1037/a0030398. Clance P R, Dingman D, Reviere S L, Stober D R. (1995). Impostor Phenomenon in an Interpersonal / Social Context: Origins and Treatment. Women and Therapy, 16(4), 79-96. doi:10.1300/J015v16n04_07. Clance P R, Imes S A. (1978). The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention. Psychotherapy, Theory, Research and Practice, 15(3), 241-247. doi:10.1037/h0086006. Clance P R. The Impostor Phenomenon: Overcoming the Fear that Haunts your Success[M]. Peachtree Publishers, Atlanta, G A, 1985. Cowman S E, Ferrari J R. (2002). "Am I for Real?" Predicting Impostor Tendencies from Self-Handicapping and Affective Components. Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal, 30(2), 119-126. doi:10.2224/sbp.2002.30.2.119. Darouei M, Pluut H. (2018). The Paradox of Being on the Glass Cliff: Why Do Women Accept Risky Leadership Positions?. Career Development International, 23(4), 397-426. doi:10.1108/CDI-01-2018-0024. Dudau D. (2014). The Relation between Perfectionism and Impostor Phenomenon. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127(22), 129-133. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.226. Evans M C. (1954). The achievement motive. American Journal of Sociology, 19(6), 477-478. doi:10.2307/2087929. Ferris D L, Brown D J, Berry J W, Lian, H. (2008). The Development and Validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348-1366. doi:10.1037/a0012743. Fleischhauer M, Wossidlo J, Michael L, Enge S. (2021). The impostor phenomenon: Toward a better understanding of the nomological network and gender differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.764030. Folkman S, Lazarus R S. Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press, 1988. Frijda N H. Emotions and Social Behavior: A Multidimensional Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Glass C, Cook A. (2016). Leading at the Top: Understanding Women's Challenges above the Glass Ceiling. Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 51-63. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.003. Hannah S T, Avolio B J, Luthans F, Harms P D. (2008). Leadership Efficacy: Review and Future Directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669-692. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.007. Harvey J C. The Impostor Phenomenon and Achievement: A Failure to Internalize Success. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(12-B, Pt 1), 4969-4970. Hays N A. Social Climbing: A Contextual Approach to Understanding the Effects of Social Hierarchy on Individual Cognition and Behavior. University of California, Los Angeles, 2012. Hitlan R T, Noel J. (2009). The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist perspective. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 18(4), 477-502. doi:10.1080/13594320903025028. Hoyt C L, Blascovich J. (2010). The role of leadership self-efficacy and stereotype activation on cardiovascular, behavioral and self-report responses in the leadership domain.The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 89-103.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.007. Huberman B A, Loch C H, Onculer A. (2004). Status as A Valued Resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1),103-114. doi:10.1177/019027250406700109. Hunt J G, Boal K B, Dodge G E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 423-448. doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(99)00027-2. Hutchins H M, Penney L M, Sublett L W. (2018). What Imposters Risk at Work: Exploring Imposter Phenomenon, Stress Coping, and Job Outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(1), 31-48. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21304. Ihmels A, Haslam S A, Shemla M, Wegge J. (2023). Through a Glass Cliff Darkly Evidence That the Media Visibility of Companies Moderates Their Willingness to Appoint Women to Leadership Positionsin Times of Crisis. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 67 (2), 107–115. doi:10.1026/0932-4089/a000406. Iwasaki I, Ma X. (2020). Gender Wage Gap in China: A Large Meta-Analysis. Journal for Labour Market Research, 54. doi:10.1186/s12651-020-00279-5. Jalalzai F. (2008). Women Rule: Shattering the Executive Glass Ceiling. Politics & Gender, 4(2), 205-231. doi:10.1017/S1743923X08000317. Janssen O, Gao L. (2015). Supervisory Responsiveness and Employee Self-Perceived Status and Voice Behavior. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1854-1872. doi:10.1177/0149206312471386. Jiang, Zhang, Wang, Lu, Xu. (2011). Workplace Ostracism in China:The Moderating Effects of Gender on Psychological Health and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Psychological Science, 34(3), 686-691. doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2011.03.024. Jun, Liu, Ho, et al. (2013). Work-to-Family Spillover Effects of Workplace Ostracism: The Role of Work-Home Segmentation Preferences. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 75-93. doi:10.1002/hrm.21513. Keith D. Dorsey. (2023). From Glass Ceilings to Glass Cliffs: A Guide to Jumping, not Falling. MIT Sloan Management Review. Koski J E, Xie H, Olson I R. (2015). Understanding social hierarchies: the neural and psychological foundations of status perception. Soc Neurosci, 10(5), 527-550. doi:10.1080/17470919.2015.1013223. Kruger J, Dunning D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. Lam A, Lambermont-Ford J P. (2010). Knowledge sharing in organisational contexts: a motivation-based perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 51-66. doi:10.1108/13673271011015561. Lamptey A O, & Lee W. (2022). Between Stigma and Status: The Experiences of Generation Z Ghanaian Female Taekwondo Athletes. Research in Dance and Physical Education. doi:10.26584/rdpa.2022.08.6.2.1. Leary M R, Patton K M, Orlando A E, Wagoner Funk W. (2000). The Impostor Phenomenon: Self-Perceptions, Reflected Appraisals, and Interpersonal Strategies. Journal of Personality, 68(4), 725-756. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00114. Lekchiri S, Crowder C, Schnerre A, Eversole B A W. (2019). Perceived workplace gender-bias and psychological impact. European Journal of Training and Development, 43(34), 339-353. doi:10.1108/EJTD-09-2018-0088. Lepine J A, van Dyne L. (2001). Peer Responses to Low Performers: An Attributional Model of Helping in the Context of Groups. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 67-84. doi:10.2307/259395. Major B, O'Brien L T. (2005). The Social Psychology of Stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393-421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137. Mark M, Carol L. (2013). Females and Precarious Board Positions: Further Evidence of the Glass Cliff. British Journal of Management, 25(3), 425-438. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12046. Ahn N Y, Cunningham G B. (2016). Cultural Values and Gender Equity on National Olympic Committee Boards. International Journal of Exercise Science, 10(6), 857-874. doi:10.70252/SZZQ7147. Nesti G. (2022). Career and family. Women's century-long journey toward equity. Regional Studies, 56(12), 2207-2208. doi:10.1080/00343404.2022.2133451. Newton N J, Stewart A J. (2013). The road not taken: Women’s life paths and gender-linked personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 306-316. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.02.003. Pinel E C. (1999). Stigma Consciousness: The Psychological Legacy of Social Stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 114-128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.114. Rudman L A, Glick P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004-1010. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004. Ryan M K, Haslam S A, Morgenroth T, Rink F, Stoker J, Peters K. (2016). Getting on Top of the Glass Cliff: Reviewing a Decade of Evidence, Explanations, and Impact. Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 446-455. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.008. Ryan M K, Haslam S A, Postmes T. (2007). Reactions to the Glass Cliff: Gender Differences in the Explanations for the Precariousness of Women's Leadership Positions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(2),182-197. doi:10.1108/09534810710724748. Ryan M K, Haslam S A. (2005). The Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women Are Over-Represented in Precarious Leadership Positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81-90. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x. Ryan M K, Haslam S A. (2007). The Glass Cliff: Exploring the Dynamics Surrounding the Appointment of Women to Precarious Leadership Positions. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 549-572. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.24351856. Ryan M, Haslam A. (2006). What Lies Beyond the Glass Ceiling?The glass cliff and the potential precariousness of women's leadership positions. Human Resource Management International Digest, 14(3), 3-5. doi:10.1108/09670730610663150. Santoniccolo F, Trombetta T, Paradiso M N. (2023). Gender and Media Representations: A Review of the Literature on Gender Stereotypes, Objectification and Sexualization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10). doi:10.3390/ijerph20105770. Shi Xinjie, Shen Yu. (2023). Mental health penalties of having a child: findings from the China family panel studies. NPJ Mental Health Research, 2(1), 7. doi:10.1038/s44184-023-00026-x. Singh R K, Singh S. (2022), Spirituality in the workplace: a systematic review, Management Decision, 60 (5),1296-1325. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2020-1466. Steele C M, Aronson J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797. Susilo,Yuniashri E, Handrito R P. (2024).Women's Tendency in Work Involvement: A Study of Female Labour Force in Indonesia. Economics & Sociology, 17(1), 151-165. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2024/17-1/10 Uzoigwe A G, Low W Y, Noor S N M. (2016). Predictors of Work-Family Role Conflict and Its Impact on Professional Women in Medicine, Engineering, and Information Technology in Nigeria. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 28(7), 629-637. doi:10.1177/1010539516667782. van Kleef G A, Cheng J T. (2020). Power, status, and hierarchy: current trends and future challenges. Current opinion in psychology, 33. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.011. Vergauwe J, De Fruyt F, Feys M, Anseel F, Wille B. (2015). Fear of Being Exposed: The Trait-Relatedness of the Impostor Phenomenon and its Relevance in the Work Context. Journal of business and psychology, 30(3), 565-581. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9382-5. Vinnicombe S, Doldor E, Turner C. (2014). The Female FTSE Board Report 2014: Crossing the finish line. Cranfield University School of Management Website. Kets de Vries M F R. (2005). The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake. Harvard Business Review, 83(9), 108-116. doi:10.1007/s10726-005-1403-3. Vuuren J V, Aldersey H M. (2020). Stigma, Acceptance and Belonging for People with IDD Across Cultures.Current developmental disorders reports, 7(3), 163-172. doi:10.1007/s40474-020-00206-w. Want J, Kleitman S. (2006). Imposter Phenomenon and Self-Handicapping: Links with Parenting Styles and Self-Confidence. Personality & Individual Differences, 40(5), 961-971. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.005. Weber E U, Ann-Renée Blais, Betz N E. (2002). A Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263-290. doi:10.1002/bdm.414. Weber M. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press, 1978. Weiss H M, Cropanzano R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 1-74. doi:10.1177/030639689603700317. Willer, Robb. (2009). Groups Reward Individual Sacrifice: The Status Solution to the Collective Action Problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23-43. doi:10.1177/000312240907400102. Williams K D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 425-452. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641. Williams M, Polman E. (2015). Is It Me or Her? How Gender Composition Evokes Interpersonally Sensitive Behavior on Collaborative Cross-Boundary Projects. Organization Science, 26(2), 334-355. doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0941. Kim Y, Jung J, Na J. (2022). Socioeconomic status differences in psychological responses to unfair treatments: Behavioral evidence of a vicious cycle. PLoS ONE, 17(6): e0268286. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268286. Zhang X, Dai L. (2015). The Relationship between Neuroticism and Experience of Workplace Ostracism in New Employees. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 80-87. doi:10.4236/jss.2015.32011. Zhu Y, Konrad A M, Jiao H. (2016). Violation and activation of gender expectations: Do Chinese managerial women face a narrow band of acceptable career guanxi strategies?. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(1), 53-86. doi:10.1007/s10490-015-9435-y. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7543643","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":539719907,"identity":"d172bfe9-b268-42a7-b9e5-5c030ebab42e","order_by":0,"name":"Linlin Zheng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Huaqiao University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Linlin","middleName":"","lastName":"Zheng","suffix":""},{"id":539719908,"identity":"2d39e4ba-2096-4ffc-b24e-19fef284ae3c","order_by":1,"name":"Yang Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Huaqiao University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yang","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":539719909,"identity":"ea282c43-6241-4acc-8348-273a5ffb8316","order_by":2,"name":"Yuqing Huang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Huaqiao University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuqing","middleName":"","lastName":"Huang","suffix":""},{"id":539719910,"identity":"78dcce65-aded-49d2-bb5a-21acc0569442","order_by":3,"name":"Qiuying Zhong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Huaqiao University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Qiuying","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhong","suffix":""},{"id":539719911,"identity":"99cc5a26-82c7-430e-8901-a0670f675650","order_by":4,"name":"Di Ye","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Huaqiao University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Di","middleName":"","lastName":"Ye","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-05 11:08:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7543643/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7543643/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95266279,"identity":"72641244-2a9a-4b8e-bbbb-ed807971ef3a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 06:06:15","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":283943,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1002TheImpactofFemaleStigmaPerceptionontheTendencytoChooseHighRiskLeadershipPositions11.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/74d3bde31e6bb575e468fa46.docx"},{"id":95266272,"identity":"35515787-5b9c-4c8d-b454-48dc373919dc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 06:06:15","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6188,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"df59e05a4b8641a8957d4f67155adbbf.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/122b5ebae6a6f632e5ae05ca.json"},{"id":95266278,"identity":"47dc4f28-e3c1-4394-87cd-ae312eb7cbf4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 06:06:15","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":225862,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"df59e05a4b8641a8957d4f67155adbbf1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/8c6e2326f0e859a1f10f1a5d.xml"},{"id":95313536,"identity":"d21b4567-248b-450a-9423-bca15bee59e8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 15:51:39","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":19974,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/ac4ad08711efd73ccb26ce7b.png"},{"id":95266276,"identity":"61ab1deb-1ff0-4e34-95bb-e8e123a35a26","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 06:06:15","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14603,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/52e4c650627f040f6992a6ef.png"},{"id":95266274,"identity":"83df7fea-be3d-4afe-8838-0992669dd5ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 06:06:15","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15376,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/e0e347e70bc8f4417b78f463.png"},{"id":95313684,"identity":"f59d0461-963b-4563-bb97-ac1258fd91cd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 15:51:51","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":223134,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"df59e05a4b8641a8957d4f67155adbbf1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/e4e0603fe0ca523403d11f06.xml"},{"id":95266280,"identity":"d770e734-050e-4097-9509-9ace3a67c5e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 06:06:15","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":231943,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/122a7ecfa32210b48c422ac4.html"},{"id":95266271,"identity":"ebbce988-b24e-4bdb-9dd9-03ecf6471007","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 06:06:15","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60618,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/2c33561aba3a919b66a92572.png"},{"id":95313334,"identity":"60600c28-ba29-411b-be44-59b3f711ee81","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 15:51:17","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56354,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eModerating Effect of Imposter Syndrome\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/98da0bb6683a52343fad4a14.png"},{"id":95313390,"identity":"d6c8f1e0-642d-4a3f-a9a1-01db4a903bb8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 15:51:20","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58175,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eModerating Effect of Workplace Ostracism\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/2d24da28c040df51450aa030.png"},{"id":99314154,"identity":"b78c50f8-52cb-4070-848f-72a4024491d6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:20:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2109395,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7543643/v1/73274fd2-05ed-4eee-9a82-d8cf26987603.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Impact of Female Stigma Perception on the Tendency to Choose High-Risk Leadership Positions","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eDeveloped countries have been actively encouraging women to re-enter the workforce as a strategic response to the aging labor force and as a means to stimulate female economic growth through greater female labor participation. In countries such as the United States, Singapore, and South Korea, women account for over 60 percent of the total employed population, reflecting both structural labor market needs and gender inclusion policies. In China, policy initiatives, including the Chinese Women Development Program (2021-2030), the Chinese Women Rights Protection Law, and the Female Worker Protection System, are designed to ensure women\u0026rsquo;s equitable access to wages, benefits, occupational safety, healthcare, and an optimized employment structure. In 2022, women constituted more than 40% of the total employed population in China, however, this employment percentage is still lower than that of developed countries. Despite some progress, women remain underrepresented in leadership roles, with only 37.1% of corporate directorships held by women. This disparity highlights the persistence of the \u0026quot;glass ceiling\u0026quot; which continues to constrain women\u0026rsquo;s career advancement. Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests that women are more likely to be promoted during organizational crises and face the phenomenon of \u0026quot;glass cliff\u0026quot;, which places them in high-risk leadership positions where they face heightened scrutiny and increased vulnerability to failure(Keith D. Dorsey, 2023). Most research on the operating mechanisms and impact assessments of the \u0026quot;glass cliff\u0026quot; phenomenon have primarily been conducted from the perspectives of female leadership, senior managers\u0026rsquo; mindsets, and social semiotics (Pinel, 1999; Ryan, Haslam, Morgenroth, Rink, Stoker, Peters, 2016). However, there remains a significant gap in research that examines decision-making psychology from the perspective of women\u0026apos;s subjective perceptions. Therefore, it is essential to investigate job choice tendency under the high-risk characteristics of the \u0026quot;glass cliff\u0026quot; phenomenon from the perspective of women\u0026apos;s subjective perception. While existing literature often emphasizes work-family balance among ordinary female employees and the influence of factors such as age, marital status, and childbearing on career trajectories. Additionally, studies often highlight stereotypical managerial strengths associated with women\u0026mdash;such as effective communication, motivational abilities, empathy, fairness in decision-making and a commitment to fostering harmonious, collaborative team environments. Moreover, these studies underscore organizational values brought about by employee innovation, and overall team performance. (Uzoigwe, Low, Noor, 2016; Alejandra, Nora, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, \u0026amp; Molina, 2018; Newton, Stewart, 2013; Williams \u0026amp; Polman, 2015). Research on the impact of stigmatization on working women has reached a relatively advanced stage. For example, within traditional disciplinary frameworks and gendered models of labor division, women are frequently stereotyped by managers, spouses, and societal structures as risk-averse, lacking risk perception, and incompetent (Beckmann \u0026amp; Menkhoff, 2008; Blais \u0026amp; Weber, 2006). The impact of subjective perspectives, such as women\u0026apos;s stigma perception, on career development has increasingly attracted the attention of scholars. Women\u0026apos;s diverse responses to stigmatizing situations are driven by specific status competition motives (Lamptey \u0026amp; Lee, 2022), and status competition motives have emerged as an underlying factor driving the diverse coping strategies women employ when confronting career development obstacles. (Benenson, 2022). Consequently, in studies examining job choice tendencies for high-risk positions within the context of the \u0026quot;glass cliff\u0026quot; phenomenon, incorporating status competition motives is essential to fundamentally elucidate women\u0026apos;s workplace behaviors. A reduced perception of stigma enables women to gain respect and recognition through proactive engagement, whereas a heightened perception of stigma may compel women to exert radical control over their circumstances and pursue resources, power, and opportunities through unconventional means (Rudman \u0026amp; Glick, 1999; Hoyt \u0026amp; Blascovich, 2010). Women are prone to experience impostor syndrome, characterized by self-doubt, discomfort with external recognition, and avoidance of high achievement (Clance \u0026amp; Imes, 1978). Additionally, some women exacerbate relational rivalry and power striving related to stigmatization within an already exclusionary work environment. Thus comprehensive and systematic research is needed to explore how stigma perception influences job choice tendencies via status competition motives in workplace contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research begins with an examination of the glass cliff phenomenon and investigates the psychological mechanisms linking women\u0026apos;s stigma perceptions to their tendencies of pursuing high-risk leadership positions. The study explores the mediating role of status competition motives in this relationship. Additionally, \u0026quot;impostor syndrome\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;workplace ostracism\u0026quot; are introduced as situational moderators to examine the impacts of stigma perceptions. Theoretically, this research deepens understanding of both internal and external factors shaping women\u0026apos;s career decision to pursue high-risk leadership roles. It provides a comprehensive analysis of how internal psychological perceptions, personality traits, status motives, and external workplace ostracism interact within this context. Furthermore, it offers a multi-path framework for understanding women\u0026rsquo;s decision-making processes regarding high-risk positions in the workplace. Practically, the study assists organizations in objectively evaluating female leadership potential while acknowledging the psychological changes women may face. It advocates for targeted incentive strategies for highly capable female employees who are prone to self-doubt. By optimizing developmental environments for women, organizations can expand opportunities for career advancement and mitigate the glass cliff phenomenon, which often associates crisis with female appointments. This approach encourages women to recognize their unique strengths and cultivate self-acceptance, rather than succumbing to self-limiting beliefs, overreliance on external recognition, or tendencies to attribute failure to internal shortcomings, thereby enhancing career stability, professional competence, and skill development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"1 Literature review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1 Glass cliff phenomenon\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1.1 Concept\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe glass cliff phenomenon was initially characterized as a situation in which women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions during times of organizational or economic crisis, while men are typically promoted during periods of stability and prosperity (Glass \u0026amp; Cook, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Early scholars believed that there was a correlation between the increasing number of women on corporate boards and declining stock prices, and some scholars even attribute poor company performance to the presence of women. However, Ryan and Haslam (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) presented an alternative explanation, arguing that it is the decline in stock prices that precipitates the appointment of women to board positions. Furthermore, Ryan and Haslam (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), along with Brady et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), contended that women are more likely to be selected for executive roles when organizations face high risks of failure or become embroiled in public scandals. In other words, the greater the severity of an organizational crisis, the higher the likelihood and proportion of female executives being appointed. The glass cliff phenomenon has also been observed across diverse industries. For instance, women are frequently nominated as political candidates during contentious situations (Jalalzai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e); female lawyers are often assigned high-stakes and complex cases (Ashby, Ryan, Haslam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e); and following corruption scandals within FIFA, a woman was historically appointed to a leadership role (Ahn \u0026amp; Cunningham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the context of the glass cliff phenomenon, appointments of high-risk leadership positions typically occur during crises marked by declining financial performance, technical failures, accidents, scandals, organizational restructuring, and market fluctuations. Candidates assuming these high-risk leadership roles face external instability, operational challenges, and economic pressures (Ryan \u0026amp; Haslam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, they often lack recognition and support as well as access to critical information and resources; consequently, their tenures tend to be relatively short. The broader implication of the glass cliff phenomenon is that during crises, women are more likely to obtain high-risk leadership positions in an attempt to save the organization. However, their workplace status is less stable compared to that of men, making them vulnerable to stigmatization through negative evaluations and more likely to be replaced by men. Once displaced from these positions, women face significant challenges in securing similar or equivalent positions within the organization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1.2 Formation factors of glass cliff phenomenon\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e(1) Stereotype and group preference\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeople often develop a \"manager-male\" and \"crisis-female\" thinking stereotype rooted in gender stereotypes. The former stereotype is based on the assumption that female characteristics are incompatible with those traditionally associated with effective leadership. However, some traits essential for effectively addressing crises, such as collaborative leadership, teamwork, and emotional regulation, frequently attributed to women (Hunt, Boal, Dodge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, female leaders can alleviate performance pressure by signaling change to stakeholders (Ryan, Haslam, Morgenroth, Rink, Stoker, Peters, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, the latter stereotype suggests that men may be perceived as more adept at uniting to support women in high-risk leadership positions as a way of shielding themselves from adverse outcomes (Ryan \u0026amp; Haslam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(2) The scarcity of female resources\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWomen encounter various career barriers (Cardoso \u0026amp; Marques, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), experience slow and uncertain career progression (Vinnicombe, Doldor, Turner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and have limited access to leadership roles. The \"manager-male\" and \"crisis-female\" thinking paradigms render high-risk leadership positions as a rare avenue for advancement. It is not that female candidates are unaware of the glass cliff phenomenon and its inherent injustices towards women (Ryan, Haslam, Postmes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e); rather, women often feel compelled to pursue high-risk positions despite their generally unwelcoming nature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(3) Other influencing factors\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost scholars have examined the formation of the glass cliff phenomenon from external factors such as organizational decision-making, gender bias, industry characteristics, business crises, and signal transmission (Mark \u0026amp; Carol, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Aelenei, Yvette Assilam\u0026eacute;hou-Kunz, Iacoviello, Kulich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For example, external media exposure reduces the likelihood of women being appointed in glass cliff situations (Ihmels, Haslam, Shemla, Wegge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Darouei \u0026amp; Pluut (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) have explored women's career decisions in the glass cliff phenomenon, revealing that women may place greater importance on accepting high-risk roles as a pathway to promotion under certain conditions. However, limited scholarly attention has been devoted to understanding the underlying psychological mechanisms and motivational factors influencing women's choices regarding high-risk leadership positions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.2 Review of the literature related to stigma\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.2.1 Concept and measurement of stigma\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concept of stigmatization was introduced by Goffman as early as 1963. It refers to a condition in which an individual is marked by attributes deemed discreditable or incompatible with mainstream cultural norms, leading to social devaluation, marginalization, or exclusion. Essentially, stigmatization reflects a negative stereotype that is recognized and perpetuated by members of the dominant cultural group. The marginalized experiences of stigmatized individuals significantly undermine their social status and access to resources(Major \u0026amp; O'Brien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). With regard to female stigma perception, Pinel measured it from two aspects: \"women's experiences when interacting with men\" and \"women's perception of how men evaluate women\" (Pinel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Chinese scholars, taking into account the local sociocultural context and research objectives, conducted these measurements among general employees. Subsequently, Chen, et al. (2022) developed a scale specifically designed to assess stigma perception among Chinese female leaders, thereby enabling more direct and culturally applicable measurement of stigma perception.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.2.2 Studies on female stigma formation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch on the factors contributing to the stigmatization of women is relatively well-established, primarily focusing on social culture, institutional structures, and environmental contexts. The differences in social roles, status hierarchies, moral characters, and temperaments between men and women are shaped by the prevailing social environment. In early human societies, gender-based labor division emerged from physiological differences, aiming to leverage gender-specific strengths for group survival. As human societies advanced, although women began participating in various social domains, patriarchal ideologies emphasizing rigid gender distinctions led many women to withdraw from broader societal participation, thereby diminishing their social standing. Some ancient classics prescribed distinct behavioral norms for men and women: men were trained in social skills, moral conduct, martial arts, and strategic thinking to navigate public life and leadership roles, while women were instructed to embody humility, submissiveness, diligence, and inclusiveness, and to cultivate household management abilities. This ideology of gendered labor division implicitly positions men in high-status, technical, managerial, and higher-paying occupations, while relegating women to vulnerable workplace positions, making them more susceptible to stigmatization (Zhu, Konrad, Jiao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe stigmatization of women encompasses everyday stereotypes such as \"leftover women\" and \"mannish women\", as well as workplace stereotypes including \"exchange of power and sex\" and \"maintaining favorable relationships with male colleagues\". Scholars have primarily examined women's responses to stigmatization through the perspectives of social status and resource endowment. When women occupy a low social status and possess limited control over resources, they tend to respond to stigmatization with silence, passive acceptance, and submissive avoidance. In contrast, when women hold higher status, possess the authority to voice their opinions, and demonstrate a strong sense of self-efficacy, they are more likely to react with anger towards stigmatization and adopt active resistance strategies. This may even lead them to engage in assertive or confrontational behaviors that could provoke backlash from others (Folkman \u0026amp; Lazaru, 1988). For instance, these individuals might disregard objective facts and express themselves vehemently in an effort to defend their rights and assert their status (Folkman \u0026amp; Lazaru, 1988). It is evident that women with different characteristics across varying occupational environments exhibit diverse responses to stigmatization; however, there remains a lack of comprehensive research examining how these responses influence women's career development in the workplace. Most analyses regarding the impact of women's stigma perceptions on their career trajectories have been conducted from the perspective of stigma perpetrators. For instance, studies have focused on the negative impact of managers' stereotypes on women's career advancement (Lekchiri, Crowder, Schnerre, Eversole, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and the negative impact of spouses' biases on women's work prosperity (Susilo, Yuniashri, Handrito, 2024). The research subjects in stigmatization studies tend to be relatively homogeneous, often focusing on specific groups (such as left-behind children and divorced young adults) or particular occupations (such as doctors and tour guides). These studies predominantly emphasize everyday life contexts rather than workplace environments. There is a notable lack of research that centers on working women as primary subjects to examine how stigma perception influences individual motivations and career-related decisions. Furthermore, integrated research examining both stigma perception and the glass cliff phenomenon remains limited.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.3 The concept of workplace status competition and its motivation formation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn a hierarchical environment, status encompasses resources, power, wealth, and reputation. It represents the subjective assessment of an individual's social rank based on the prevailing values within a social hierarchy. Status is an honor conferred upon an individual through collective recognition and serves as a social aspiration that individuals strive to attain (Weber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e; Koski, Xie, Olson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Within a workplace context, workplace status refers to the level of respect and admiration exhibited by colleagues towards an individual following an evaluation of that individual's contributions to the organization (Bendersky \u0026amp; Pai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Workplace status significantly influences the trajectory of employees' career trajectories and is closely associated with various factors such as subjective well-being, job satisfaction, commitment levels, team morale, and performance (Willer \u0026amp; Robb, 2009; Janssen \u0026amp; Gao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), exhibiting instrumental social value, contextuality, multi-channel sources, and dynamism (Weber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePossessing workplace status enables individuals to attain dominant power and reputational influence. Consequently, the pursuit of status can be categorized into two distinct types of motives: one involves seeking control over the resources associated with that status, while the other relates to spiritual aspirations such as the respect symbolized by status (Singh R K, Singh S, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The former motive represents a dominant status competition motive, often referred to as an egoistic motive, which is linked to long-term forced endurance (Anderson \u0026amp; Kilduff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals with this motive prioritize the rights and resources conferred by their status and view it primarily as a means to exert control over others or circumstances. For instance, they may engage in behaviors aimed at dominating, threatening, suppressing, or excluding others; such actions undermine fairness and reduce opportunities for collaboration and resource sharing (Berger, Cohen, Zelditch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, the latter motive embodies a prosocial motivation for status competition. This motivation is characterized by altruism, a sense of responsibility, and self-efficacy. It has been shown to enhance organizational performance, foster team innovation, and facilitate knowledge sharing (Evans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1954\u003c/span\u003e; Lam A \u0026amp; Lambermont-Ford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals driven by this motive exhibit traits such as inclusiveness, friendliness, and mutual assistance, while prioritizing prestige, honor, and external recognition to fulfill their psychological needs (Bendersky \u0026amp; Hays, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The division of social roles between men and women within the social environment has resulted in a significant disparity in women's social status and subsequent stigmatization. This perception of stigmatization activates varying status needs among women (Anderson, Hildreth, Howland, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), which in turn leads to diverse motives for status competition (Hays, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Existing research has primarily focused on the effects of status competition motives on organizational performance, individual innovation, and knowledge sharing. However, there remains a relative paucity of integrated studies examining the interplay between status competition motives and women's workplace psychology and decision-making processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.4 Review of the literature related to imposter syndrome\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.4.1 Concept of imposter syndrome\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the observation that women tend to attribute their achievements to factors such as accidental mistakes, luck, or a desire to avoid excessive attention, Clance and Imes defined this phenomenon as impostor syndrome (Clance \u0026amp; Imes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e), which is conceptualized as a tendency towards self-doubt and self-negation. Individuals experiencing this syndrome underestimate their abilities, accomplishments, and personal worth, are prone to anxiety and restlessness, conflate success with failure, and exhibit heightened sensitivity to others' evaluations. Despite meeting or exceeding external criteria for success, women often attribute their achievements to external causes while internalizing failures in an effort to maintain a favorable impression or protect their self-esteem. This pattern of cognition and behavior can lead to persistent feelings of subjective incompetence and self-doubt (Clance, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e; Kruger \u0026amp; Dunning, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). The academic community has extended the concept of impostor syndrome from psychology into the field of management and has found that executives in many prominent organizations also exhibit varying degrees of this phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.4.2 Formation factors of imposter syndrome and its measurement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch on impostor syndrome among working women has not yet received sufficient scholarly attention. Western scholars suggest that impostor syndrome is associated with resource depletion, self-attribution biases, self-deprecation, feelings of inferiority, and fear of future failures. In contrast, Chinese scholars have primarily focused on non-enterprise employees such as students and nurses. The development of impostor syndrome in women is linked to a lack of familial support, societal stereotypes regarding gender roles, and expectations related to family responsibilities (Clance, Dingman, Reviere, Stober, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, other researchers argue that it may be associated with perfectionist tendencies (Dudau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Vergauwe, De Fruyt, Feys, Anseel, Wille, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), negative self-perception (Leary, Patton, Orlando, Wagoner Funk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), avoidance-oriented coping behaviors, and diminished self-efficacy (Hutchins, Penney, Sublett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Cowman \u0026amp; Ferrari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Impostor syndrome can lead to self-defeating behaviors, ultimately resulting in decreased self-efficacy, lower leadership motivation, and impaired innovative capabilities (Kets de Vries, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, Harms, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). It also negatively affects other organizational members and undermines organizational performance and long-term development. Given prior findings on the impact of impostor syndrome on leadership motivation, this study posits that impostor syndrome influences the formation of women's decision-making motivation in stigmatizing contexts. Subsequent research will focus on stigmatizing situations and explore how impostor syndrome affects women's motivation to pursue high-risk leadership positions.Measurement tools for impostor syndrome include Harvey's HIPS scale and Clance's CIPS scale (Harvey, 1981). Scholars regard the CIPS scale as more appropriate and it has been widely adopted in empirical studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.5 Review of the literature related to workplace exclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.5.1 Concept and form of expression of workplace exclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrictions and disputes often arise during interpersonal interactions aimed at acquiring resources and emotional value. Williams (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) was the first to define \"ostracism\" as \"an individual's perception of the degree to which they are ignored or rejected by others in society\". When this concept is applied to the workplace, it gives rise to the notion of \"workplace ostracism,\" which refers to an individual's subjective experience of being marginalized by external groups or specific individuals within a professional setting. Such experiences can lead ostracized individuals to suffer from anxiety, unhappiness, and other adverse psychological states (Ferris, Brown, Berry, Lian, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, workplace ostracism has been shown to diminish work performance and increase tendencies toward job turnover or counterproductive behaviors (Hitlan \u0026amp; Noel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Workplace ostracism can intensify knowledge hiding, which undermines team cohesion and collaboration. Moreover, the emotional exhaustion resulting from workplace ostracism can spill over into family life, negatively affecting personal relationships and well-being (Jun, Liu, Ho, et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.5. 2 Influencing factors and measures of workplace ostracism\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eScholars have investigated the formation of workplace ostracism from various perspectives, including personality traits, organizational structure, and organizational culture (Zhang \u0026amp; Dai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Discussions regarding the consequences of workplace ostracism primarily emphasize its effects on helping behaviors, turnover intentions, voice behaviors, and related outcomes. Integrated research in occupational psychology predominantly focuses on the negative repercussions of workplace ostracism, such as its contribution to diminished self-confidence, heightened stress levels, and adverse emotional states. In comparable positions, women typically hold lower job ranks and receive lower salaries than their male counterparts, particularly within nation-owned enterprises (Iwasaki \u0026amp; Ma, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). They also encounter the promotion challenges associated with the \"glass ceiling\". Under the compounded influences of workplace ostracism and perceived stigmatization, women's professional mindsets may foster subjective initiative. However, there has been relatively limited exploration into how workplace ostracism affects the promotion motivations of female employees. Regarding measurement tools used in this field of study, a widely employed scale is that developed by Ferris et al., which includes items such as \"At work, my colleagues do not take me seriously and ignore me,\" and \"At work, others do not pay much attention to my greetings\" (Ferris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Jiang et al. subsequently adapted this scale to align with Chinese cultural contexts (Jiang, Zhang, Wang, Lu, Xu, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical basis and research hypothesis","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Theoretical basis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWeiss and Cropanzano proposed the theory of emotional events in 1996 (Weiss \u0026amp; Cropanzano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). This theory systematically explores the relationship between emotional events, emotional reactions, and the attitudes and behaviors that individuals experience in the workplace. It emphasizes the structure, inducement, and consequences of an individual's emotional responses at work. Work-related events trigger individual emotional responses, which in turn shape attitudes and influence behavior as well as work performance. There are two pathways through which emotional responses affect behavior: One involves a direct impact on employee behavior. For instance, when employees feel frustrated or anxious, they may engage in negative behaviors such as tardiness or absenteeism. The second pathway involves an indirect effect on behavior by influencing employees' work attitudes. For example, the prolonged accumulation of negative emotions can lead to decreased job satisfaction and organizational commitment among employees, ultimately resulting in turnover intentions. In recent years, growing attention has been paid to employees' emotional experiences due to their significant impact on individual work attitudes and behaviors. The theory of emotional events provides robust theoretical support for studying individual emotions within organizational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale perceived stigma in the workplace is regarded as an emotional event that elicits negative emotional responses. Stigma perception enables female employees to pursue workplace status and power preference in order to challenge stereotypes and gain access to the means and resources necessary to reverse adverse circumstances. Women\u0026rsquo;s status competitive motivation may be moderate or aggressive, thereby influencing their willingness to pursue potentially high-risk leadership positions. In this study, we examined the emotional event associated with female stigma perception and found that the pathway \"female stigma perception \u0026rarr; status competitive motivation \u0026rarr; tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions\" aligns with the theoretical framework of \"work event \u0026rarr; emotion \u0026rarr; attitude/behavior\".\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Study hypothesis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2.1 Relationship between female stigma perception and the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWomen are frequently characterized by labels such as \"gentle and submissive\" \"weak and dependent\" \"having low stress resistance\" and \"unable to grasp the overall situation\". These stereotypes contribute to the perception that women lack essential workplace traits such as \"risk-taking\" and \"competitiveness\", which are traditionally associated with men (Santoniccolo, Trombetta, Paradiso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Certain societal groups impose disciplinary norms on women, resulting in a diminished entrepreneurial spirit and leadership ambition in professional settings and consequently leading to missed career advancement opportunities. Social stereotypes not only influence individuals' behavioral responses in the workplace but also significantly influence the positioning and developmental trajectories of women's roles (Lepine, van Dyne, 2002). Research on gender differences in work effort indicates that gender plays a crucial role in shaping individuals' work engagement and efficiency (Asadullah, Ul Haq, Wahba, Hashmi, Kim, Hwang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The societal solidification of work-related skills along gender lines, coupled with social expectations that women should primarily fulfill familial roles, compels them to prioritize family responsibilities. This prioritization ultimately reduces their productivity levels, limits their job opportunities, and makes promotions more challenging compared to their male counterparts (Susilo, Yuniashri, Handrito, 2024; Nesti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). With societal advancements and the development of the Internet, women have gained access to greater learning opportunities and platforms for personal growth. They are increasingly recognizing that gender-based divisions of labor and rigid labels become stigmatizing markers perceived inferiority relative to men. According to emotional events theory, stigmatization acts as a triggering factor. The negative emotions arising from stigma conflict with individuals\u0026rsquo; fundamental need for acceptance and belongingness (Vuuren \u0026amp; Aldersey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Women are generally more adept at perceiving risks compared to men (Weber, Ann-Ren\u0026eacute;e Blais, Betz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). With a strong affirmation of their self-worth, women who have long confronted negative stereotypes exhibit greater adaptability and resilience. As a result, they are more likely to aspire to succeed in high-risk leadership roles (Steele \u0026amp; Aronson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). In conclusion, the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1: Female stigma perception has a positive impact on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 Mediating role of status competitive motivation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial status determines the extent to which an individual can influence resource allocation, conflict resolution, and group decision-making (van Kleef \u0026amp; Cheng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals with lower status have no choice but to relinquish their interests and submit to those with higher status within the group. People's need for status gives rise to status competition motives (Huberman, Loch, Onculer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). According to the emotional event theory, people's emotional responses to specific events can be diverse and multidimensional, and negative emotions may trigger defensive and aggressive motives (Frijda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). For example, in the face of stigmatization, individuals in the workplace may exhibit two types of status competition motives: the prestige status competition motive, which is driven by the desire for \"friendliness\" and \"respect\" from others, and the dominant status competition motive, which is centered around \"power control\". Those with the former type of motive do not clearly perceive themselves as being stigmatized or feel a significant sense of disparity in resource deprivation in their environment. This emotional state leads them to prioritize building positive interpersonal relationships and gaining social recognition (Ryan \u0026amp; Haslame, 2005). Their pursuit is not the material resources associated with status, but rather the psychological satisfaction derived from being respected and valued. Consequently, their approach to workplace status competition tends to be peaceful and cooperative. In contrast, individuals with the latter motive perceive significant unfairness and internal imbalance due to status disparities. They are more eager to strive for status-related resources and consciously seize career opportunities to gain control over resources and influence over others (Kim, Jung, Na, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the forming process of workplace status competition is more intense. Based on the above, the following hypotheses are proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2: Different degrees of women's stigma perception will lead to different status competition motives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2a: Women with a low stigma perception are more inclined to develop high prestige status competition motives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2b: Women with a high stigma perception are more inclined to develop high dominant status competition motives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh-risk leadership positions entail turbulence and crises, as well as higher status and more abundant resources. Individuals with prestige-oriented status competition motives are driven by the desire to gain respect and maintain self-esteem. They show friendliness and inclusiveness, are willing to help others, and exhibit outstanding qualities, thereby achieving high value and broad recognition within organizational contexts (Singh R K, Singh S, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Based on the \"crisis-women\" stereotype, high-risk leadership positions offer promotion opportunities for women (Ryan \u0026amp; Haslame, 2005). However, such positions involve significant hidden risks. Women often lack adequate recognition and institutional support (Ryan \u0026amp; Haslam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), and the likelihood of achieving tangible rewards is low. Essentially, these kinds of appointments constitute \"symbolic management\". Individuals who choose high-risk leadership positions may fear that failure in such environments could damage their professional reputations; consequently, they may hesitate to embrace these job-related risks. Female individuals with dominant status competition motives tend to prioritize the power and rewards associated with status (Bothner, Kim, Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). They perceive themselves as occupying disadvantaged positions and are strongly motivated to change this imbalance. They seek to exert control over resources and influence over others (Kim, Jung, Na, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Although the glass cliff phenomenon suggests that women's managerial appointments may culminate in setbacks or failures, those with dominant status competition motives view such risks not as threats, but as pathways to success and recognition. Based on the above, the following hypotheses are proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH3: Different types of status competition motives have differential impacts on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH3a: Prestige status competition motives have a negative impact on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH3b: Dominant status competition motives have a positive impact on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2.3 Moderating role of imposter syndrome\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe impostor syndrome is characterized by a tendency toward self-negation and is more commonly observed in women's self-evaluations (Fleischhauer, Wossidlo, Michael, Enge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Successful women may experience feelings of self-doubt, exhibit intolerance for failure, and prefer to avoid excessive attention. These factors can lead to a decline in self-efficacy and subsequently diminish leadership motives,, which refers to the capacity to influence others (Burke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). Women nominated for high-risk leadership positions are expected to demonstrate exceptional capabilities in their work performance. They often engage in critical self-evaluation as a means of maintaining a positive image and protecting their self-esteem. Alternatively, they may shy away from potential opportunities and achievements due to fear of external evaluations (Want \u0026amp; Kleitman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), thereby attempting to alleviate the psychological pressure resulting from excessively high expectations imposed by others (Clance \u0026amp; Imes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). Based on the aforementioned considerations, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH4: The impostor syndrome negatively moderates the relationship between women's stigma perception and prestige status competition motives. The higher the individual's tendency towards self-negation, the more the negative relationship between women's stigma perception and prestige status competition motives is weakened.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2.4 Moderating role of workplace ostracism\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen objectively existing issues such as information blockage, rejection, neglect, exclusion, and resource depletion arise within an organization, individuals are subjected to significant stressors (Williams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Society tends to prioritize women's roles in life, emotions, family responsibilities, and childbearing over their workplace value and status (Shi Xinjie \u0026amp; Shen Yu, 2023), leading to a diminished voice for women in professional settings. For instance, leaders often place greater importance on the suggestions of male employees or preferentially assign critical tasks and training opportunities to men, making women feel despised, neglected, and even excluded in an already disharmonious workplace atmosphere. Women who experience stigmatization may find that their negative emotions are intensified by the atmosphere of workplace ostracism; consequently, they may adopt strategies aimed at mitigating the loss of resources or opportunities (Major \u0026amp; O'Brien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Such strategies can manifest as irrational or aggressive behaviors. For example, they might engage in \"tit for tat\" actions as a means of self-protection while suppressing altruistic tendencies, thereby developing motives related to competition for dominant status. Based on the above, the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH5: Workplace ostracism positively moderates the relationship between women's stigma perception and competition motives for dominant status. Specifically, higher levels of workplace ostracism will strengthen the positive relationship between women's stigma perceptions and their competition motives for achieving dominant status.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 Model construction\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough a comprehensive review of relevant literature and grounded in the glass cliff phenomenon, this study employs the theory of emotional events as its theoretical foundation to elucidate the internal mechanisms among key variables. It clarifies the relationship between women's stigma perception and their inclination to pursue high-risk leadership positions. Furthermore, it examines the mediating effect of status competition motives in this relationship, while simultaneously incorporating impostor syndrome and workplace ostracism as moderating factors. The theoretical model proposed in this research is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Study design and data collection","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Questionnaire design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions is measured using scenario-based items. This approach enables participants to feel engaged in the decision-making process and gain a clear understanding of the content being assessed by the items. At the same time, it enhances the contextual relevance of the measurement to the research focus. The questionnaire design draws upon widely recognized and well-established scales. During the survey process, necessary explanations are provided to participants. Before the official distribution of the questionnaire, a small-scale pre-survey was conducted first. The reliability and validity of the pre-survey data were analyzed using SPSS software. Based on satisfactory results from this analysis, further refinements to the questionnaire items were made. To minimize careless responding, reverse-coded items were incorporated into the measurement scales for each variable to ensure the accuracy of the survey results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Variable measurement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scale design employed in this study utilized the Likert 7-point scoring method (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;complete disagreement, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;complete agreement).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe measurement of women's stigma perception draws not only on the scale developed by Pinel et al. (Pinel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), but also on the scale of female leaders' stigma perception developed by Chen et al. (Chen, Li, Chen, et al., 2022). This measurement includes items relevant to workplace scenarios such as: \"People seem to interpret all of my behaviors based on my identity as a woman\" \"There is a belief that women tend to focus excessively on minor details and are unable to maintain an overall perspective or view problems comprehensively,\" and \"For female leaders who achieve promotions, it is often assumed that their advancement results from factors unrelated to their competencies\".\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe prestige status competition motive and the dominant status competition motive are adapted from Cheng et al.'s dominance-prestige status scale (Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, Henrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In consideration of the Chinese cultural context and organizational environment, the measurement of prestige status competition motive includes items such as: \"I hope my unique abilities and talents are recognized by others\" \"I hope to be respected rather than feared by my colleagues\" \"I will successfully persuade others through equal communication\". The measurement of dominant status competition motive consists of first-person perspective items that directly assess the construct, including: \"I try to control others\" \"I often strive to achieve goals regardless of others' opinions\" \"My colleagues know it is best to let me do things my own way\".\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe measurement of the impostor syndrome draws on the characteristic scale developed by Clance et al. (Clance \u0026amp; Imes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e), which involves doubts and concerns about one's own abilities, the attribution of achievements to luck, and the inability to acknowledge good performance or accept praise. Specifically, it includes items such as: \"I try my best to avoid being evaluated by others and am also afraid of others' evaluations\" \"It is very difficult for me to accept and identify with others' compliments on my intelligence, talents or achievements\" \"I am worried that I actually haven't done well or won't be able to meet their expectations of me in the future\".\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe measurement of workplace ostracism draws on the workplace ostracism scale applicable to Chinese employees developed by Jiang et al. (Jiang, Zhang, Wang, Lu, Xu, 2011). Items with favorable reliability coefficients were selected, including: \"Colleagues are more likely to ignore the opinions or suggestions of some employees\" \"When employees encounter problems and consult colleagues, colleagues ignore them or give perfunctory answers\"\"When employees achieve results at work, colleagues do not offer congratulations\" and so on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data collection and analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1 Demographic information of the survey sample\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research participants in this study were female employees working in Chinese enterprises. A total of 283 questionnaires were collected. After excluding responses with a large number of missing values, those completed irregularly, and those failing the validity check, 278 valid questionnaires were obtained. The effective response rate was 98.23%, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the subsequent data analysis. Regarding the distribution of the sample, in terms of gender, all participants were female, consistent with the target population. In terms of age, individuals aged 21 to 30 constituted the largest group (52.2%), followed by those aged 41 to 50 (18.3%), indicating a relatively broad age range within the sample. With respect to educational attainment, the proportion of those with a bachelor's degree was the highest (31.7%), while those with a high school diploma or below accounted for only 18.7%, reflecting a generally high level of education among respondents, and enabling them to fully comprehend and accurately respond to the questionnaire items. In terms of work experience, employees with less than three years of work accounted for the largest proportion (65.1%). Regarding job positions, those in grassroots management and middle management accounted for 33.8%, and those in senior management accounted for 8.3%, indicating that the sample encompasses diverse job levels and is capable of providing important information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.2 Normal test of variables\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the normal test of female stigma perception(X), prestige status competition motive(M1), dominant status competitive motivation(M2), workplace ostracism(Z1), imposter syndrome(Z2), and choice tendency of high-risk leadership position (Y), the absolute value of skewness coefficient is less than 3, and the absolute value of kurtosis coefficient is less than 10. These values meet the criteria for normal distribution, allowing subsequent data analysis to proceed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.3 Test of Common Method Bias\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Harman single-factor test was used to conduct a principal component factor analysis on all the items of the main variables. The variance explained rate of the first factor before rotation is 34.236%, which meet the requirement of being less than 40%. This indicates that the common method bias in this study is not severe.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.4 Confirmatory factor analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe factor model composed of six variables reached the standard fit level (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.063\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.906\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.995\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.995\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.037\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.015\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1), indicating that no single factor explained most of the variation, and the data were better (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommon Indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eχ2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eχ2/df\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNNFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandard Value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e510.043\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e480\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.063\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.906\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.995\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.924\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.995\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther Indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePGFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePNFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePCFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRMSEA 90% CI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandard Value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.995\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.995\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.775\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.840\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.905\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.037\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.013\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;0.026\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, the square root values of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of all variables are above 0.58 and exceed the maximum absolute value of the inter-factor correlation coefficients, which proves that the six factors have good discriminant validity and provides a statistical basis for the subsequent analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults of AVE and CR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.632\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.932\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.647\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.879\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.587\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.850\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.670\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.924\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.656\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.930\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.658\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.885\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Data analysis and hypothesis test","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Description of statistics and correlation analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlation of variables are as follows (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics of Variables and Correlation Analysis between Variables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"13\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eaverage value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003estandard error\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge (1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.820\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.119\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation (2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.885\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.317\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork Experience(3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.795\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.449\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.267\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePosition (4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.338\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.297\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.253\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.043\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.302\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eX Female Stigma Perception (5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.808\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.381\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.052\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.158\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM1 Prestige Status Competition Motive(6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.875\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.504\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.136\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.019\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.219\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.157\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.552\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM2 Dominant Status Competition Motive (7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.387\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.524\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.138\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.042\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.292\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.160\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.462\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.218\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eZ1 Workplace Ostracism (8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.415\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.595\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.083\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.167\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.371\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.285\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.319\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eZ2 Impostor Syndrome (9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.654\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.503\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.162\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.036\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.123\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.315\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.398\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.127\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.207\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eY Choice Tendency of High-risk Leadership Position (10)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.124\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.568\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.009\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.005\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.099\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.085\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.561\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.536\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.435\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.267\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.301\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"13\"\u003eNote: \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs shown in the above table, stigma perception is positively correlated with dominant status competition motive, workplace ostracism, and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. Female stigma perception was negatively associated with prestige status competition motive and imposter syndrome. Prestige status competitive motive was positively correlated with imposter syndrome and negatively correlated with the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. Dominant status competition motive is positively correlated with workplace ostracism and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. These preliminary results support the feasibility of proceeding to the next stage of regression analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Hypothesis test\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.1 Direct effect test\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirstly, the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions was selected as the dependent variable. Demographic and professional background variables, including age, education, work experience, and position, were added to the first layer of independent variables, and the female stigma perception was added to the second layer of independent variables. The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults of the Regression Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"12\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrestige Status Competitive Motive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDominant Status Competitive Motive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c12\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTendency to Choose High-risk Leadership Positions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eControlled Variable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.089\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.124\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.150\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.072\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.082\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.034\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.123\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.078\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.105\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.059\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.054\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.025\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.049\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.063\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.016\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.037\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork Experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.181\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.091\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.067\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.272\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.183\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.005\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.032\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.026\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.048\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePosition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.103\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.086\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.112\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.079\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.065\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.069\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.051\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndependent Variable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale Stigma Perception\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.583\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.531\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.472\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.455\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.634\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.430\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.519\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMediating Variable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrestige Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompetitive Motive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.569\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.350\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDominant Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompetitive Motive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.460\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.244\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eModerating Variable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImpostor Syndrome\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.262\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace Ostracism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.143\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInteraction Terms\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale Stigma Perception\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e* Impostor Syndrome\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.196\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale Stigma Perception\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e* Workplace Ostracism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.179\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eΔR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.062\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.279\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.076\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.095\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.177\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.303\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.279\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.181\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.481\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28.045\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36.887\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.173\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.357\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.811\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.375\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.758\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.198\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.276\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.309\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"12\"\u003eNote: * p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, * * p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, * * * p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the multicollinearity test, the VIF values are all below 5, indicating that there is no multicollinearity issues. The D-W values are approximately 2, suggesting no substantial autocorrelation. From the regression results, the coefficient for the effect of female stigma perception on the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions was β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.634 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Thus, H1 was supported, confirming a positive relationship between female stigma perception and the choice tendency of high-risk leadership roles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.2 Test of the mediation effect of status competitive motive\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, to examine the mediating effects of different status competition motives, prestige status competition motive and dominant status competition motive were incorporated into the regression models. When the prestige-based status competition motive was added to the model, the negative impact of the female stigma perception on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions was weakened but remained significant (M9, β= -0.350, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), thus H2a and H3a were supported. After the adding the dominant status competition motive, the positive impact of the female stigma perception on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions weakened but remained significant as well (M11, β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.244, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), thereby H2b and H3b were supported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study further employs the bootstrap sampling method. According to the procedure for mediation analysis proposed by Wen Zhonglin et al. (2005), in the first step, taking the female stigma perception as the independent variable and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions as the dependent variable, a regression is conducted to test whether the female stigma perception significantly predicts the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. In the second step, the female stigma perception is set as the independent variable, and the prestige status competition motive and the dominant status competition motive are respectively set as the dependent variables for independent tests to examine whether the predictive effect of the the female stigma perception on the two types of status competition motives is significant. In the third step, the female stigma perception and the two status competition motives are set as the independent variables, and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions is set as the dependent variable for testing to examine whether the predictive effects of the two main variables on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions are significant. The results are shown in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults of Bootstrap-analysis of the Mediating Effect of Prestige Status Competitive Motive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall effect\u003c/b\u003e: Female stigma perception\u0026rarr;Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.6365\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0566\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.5252,0.7478]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDirect effect\u003c/b\u003e: Female stigma perception\u0026rarr;Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.4323\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0642\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.3059,0.5587]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndirect effect\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale stigma perception \u0026rarr;Prestige status competitive motivation\u0026rarr;Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.2042\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0369\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.1366,0.2800]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults of Bootstrap-analysis of the Mediating Effect of Dominant Status Competitive Motive\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall effect\u003c/b\u003e: Female stigma perception \u0026rarr;Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.6365\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0566\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.5252,0.7478]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDirect effect\u003c/b\u003e: Female stigma perception\u0026rarr; Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5191\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0620\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.3970,0.6412]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndirect effect\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale stigma perception \u0026rarr;Dominant position competitive motivation\u0026rarr; Tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.0615\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.1823\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[0.0615,0.1823]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the bootstrap test, the 95% confidence interval of prestige status competitive motivation and dominant status competitive motivation are [0.1366,0.2800] and [0.0615,0.1823], respectively, with neither interval including zero. This indicates that both motives serve as significant intermediary role in the relationship between female stigma perception and the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions, thereby supporting Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.3 Test of moderating effect\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e(1) The moderating effect of impostor syndrome on female stigma perception and prestige status competitive motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e With the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions as the dependent variable, control variables were added to the model, followed by independent variable (female stigma perception), mediating variable (prestige status competitive motivation) and moderating variable (impostor syndrome), and interaction term (female stigma perception * impostor syndrome) was included in the model. The results are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnder the premise that some factors are controlled, the female stigma perception still significantly affects the choice tendency to high-risk leadership positions. After adding the interaction term of the female stigma perception and imposter syndrome, the regression coefficient of the interaction term remains significant(M3, β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.196, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).This indicates that the first half of the mediating path through which the female stigma perception affects the choice tendency to high-risk leadership positions is moderated by imposter syndrome. The moderating effect is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e: When the level of imposter syndrome is low, the slope of the straight line is relatively large, and the negative relationship between the female stigma perception and the prestige status competitive motive remains significant. When the level of imposter syndrome is relatively high, there is still a negative relationship between the female stigma perception and the prestige status competitive motive, but the influence is weakened. Therefore, Hypothesis H4 is supported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(2) Testing of the Moderating Effect of Workplace Ostracism on the Female Stigma Perception and the Dominant Status Competitive Motive\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the basis of taking the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions as the dependent variable, control variables were added in sequence, followed by the independent variable (the female stigma perception), the mediating variable (the dominant status competitive motive), and the moderating variable (workplace ostracism). Finally, the interaction term of the independent variable and the moderating variable (the female stigma perception * workplace ostracism) was incorporated. The results are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnder the premise that some factors are controlled, the female stigma perception still significantly affects the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. After the interaction term of the female stigma perception and workplace ostracism was added to the model, the regression coefficient of the interaction term remained significant (M6, β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.179, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This indicates that the influence path of the female stigma perception on the dominant status competitive motive is moderated by workplace ostracism. The moderating effect is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e: When the level of workplace ostracism is low, the slope of the straight line is relatively small, and the positive relationship between the female stigma perception and the dominant status competitive motive remains significant. When the level of workplace ostracism is relatively high, there is still a positive relationship between the female stigma perception and the dominant status competitive motive, and the influence is strengthened. Thus, Hypothesis H5 is supported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Conclusions and Outlook","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Study conclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eGrounded in the theory of emotional events, this study examines the influence mechanism linking female stigma perception to the tendency to pursue high-risk leadership positions among female employees. It introduces status competitive motive as an mediating variable, and explores how this indirect relationship is moderated by imposter syndrome and workplace ostracism. Finally, the conclusions are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec39\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1.1 The logical chain of emotion-behavior has strong applicability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale stigma perception has a positive predictive effect on the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions, supporting the core viewpoint of Emotional Events Theory regarding the correspondence between emotional experiences and behavioral responses. When confronted with stigmatization, women experience different emotional stress responses such as anger, fear, and sadness, prompting them to adopt different motivational strategies to counteract the negative consequences of stigma. Specifically, they tend to evaluate promotion opportunities in high-risk leadership roles through the lens of their internal motivations. As women ascend to higher positions and gain greater access to more resources and decision-making power, those who perceive stigma are increasingly inclined to engage in active resistance rather than passive endurance. This psychological shift fosters the development of a motive for dominant status competition. Building upon research conducted by scholars like LePine and Van Dyne (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) concerning factors that influence individual workplace behavioral responses, this study further clarifies how subjective factors emerge as significant driving forces behind women's behavioral choices in contexts marked by stigmatization. In contrast to previous studies that primarily examined general workplace behaviors, this research explores the specific mechanisms underlying women's motivation-behavior choices in stigmatized contexts. It offers offers a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for understanding women's tendencies toward selecting high-risk leadership positions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec40\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1.2 Individual behavior differences are closely related to individuals\u0026rsquo; motive\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWomen with a low stigma perception tend to pursue harmonious interpersonal relationships in a more gentle way through moral strength and inner recognition, emphasizing respect and recognition as forms of social status. Given that high-risk leadership positions represent significant challenges characterized by limited support and low perceived chances of success, women with low stigma perception are more likely to avoid such roles. In contrast, women with high stigma perception, when subjected to high social pressure and negative judgments, are prone to feeling a sense of unfairness. They place greater emphasis on the tangible resources and benefits associated with status, perceive status competition as a zero-sum game, and view other participants as threats to their own interests. Consequently, they are enthusiastic about grasping power and status in their hands, even at the cost of social approval. Different levels of stigma perception lead to different status motives among women due to their differences in cognitive thinking, thereby affecting their choices tendency of high-risk leadership positions. Specifically, women with a high stigma perception are more likely to develop a dominant status motive, and the dominant status motive has a positive effect on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. Women with a low stigma perception are more likely to develop a prestige status motive, and the prestige status motive has a negative effect on the tendency to choose high-risk leadership positions. These findings support the view in the social comparison theory that individuals engage in competitive behaviors to acquire resources and elevate their status when confronted with external pressure and negative evaluations. Furthermore, on the basis of Huberman et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) research on status competitive motives, this study reveals that stigmatization functioning as a distinctive situational factor, exerts a complex influence on the formation of women's status competitive motives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec41\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1.3 Individual traits have a huge impact on their behavior\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eImposter syndrome negatively moderates the relationship between women's stigma perception and the prestige status competition motive. Specifically, the stronger an individual\u0026rsquo;s tendency toward self-doubt, the more weakened the negative relationship between women's stigma perception and the prestige status competitive motive. This finding aligns with seminal work on imposter syndrome by Clance and Imes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e), which suggests that individuals experiencing stigma perception may struggle to acknowledge their own abilities and accomplishments due to internalized self-negation, leading them to avoid external evaluations from others.When assessing the degree of harm caused by the stigmatization phenomenon to women, two critical aspects need to be considered. First, this harm directly stems from the stigmatization phenomenon itself. Second, women's internal motives influence their coping responses to the harm of stigmatization. Individuals with high levels of imposter syndrome exhibit a pronounced tendency toward self-negation. They are prone to attributing mistakes and failures to themselves and have difficulty facing up to their own abilities and achievements. Even in the face of objective success, they remain reluctant to accept positive evaluations from others. For these women with imposter syndrome, external praise does not serve as encouragement but instead functions as a source of anxiety. Consequently, under conditions of low stigma perception, the likelihood of developing a prestige status competition motive is significantly reduced among women with strong imposter syndrome.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec42\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1.4 The hidden negative elements of the workplace will cause harm to employees\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace ostracism may not involve obvious verbal attacks or physical conflicts. Instead, it may manifest as implicit behaviors such as social exclusion or the disregard of one\u0026rsquo;s opinions. Women who experience such treatment may perceive having less influence, being assigned fewer core responsibilities, and receiving limited access to critical training opportunities compared to their male counterparts. These experiences can evoke strong negative emotions, particularly a sense of injustice, which in turn may trigger irrational or aggressive behavioral responses. Therefore, workplace ostracism moderate the relationship between women's stigma perception and the dominant status competitive motive. Specifically, at higher levels of workplace ostracism, the positive association between stigma perception and the dominant status motive becomes stronger, indicating that stigma perception more readily predicts the emergence of this motive under conditions of social exclusion. This finding aligns with the viewpoint of Major \u0026amp; O'Brien (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and further underscores the significant impact of adverse workplace environmental factors on the psychological processes and behavioral tendencies of female employees.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec43\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Management enlightenment\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec44\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2.1 Create a social environment to help women\u0026rsquo;s career development at the national level\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith societal advancement, eliminating gender discrimination has become essential for promoting social development. To this end, the government have increasingly integrated the principle of gender equality and related policy measures into national strategies and industrial regulations. By drawing on successful international practices in advancing gender equity, such as enacting equal opportunity legislation, encouraging female students to pursue traditionally male-dominated fields, and implementing welfare initiatives like educational subsidies, low-interest loans, and vocational training programs for women. Additionally, opinions, suggestions, and plans aimed at supporting women's career development are effectively proposed in alignment with China's national conditions. Examples include strengthening collaboration with international organizations, establishing a national women\u0026rsquo;s career development guidance center, and creating a dedicated gender equality development fund. It is also imperative to increase the proportion of the representation of women in governance roles and the decision-making bodies at all levels, including urban and rural institutions across all levels of Party committees and village committees. This can be achieved through initiatives such as launching a women's political participation exchange project and instituting incentive mechanisms to encourage engagement. In addition, optimizing organizational working mechanisms and workplace environments is crucial for enhancing women's work efficiency while alleviating workplace pressures stemming from excessive family responsibilities through various channels. Practically policy measures include standardizing maternity leave, parental leave, and other childbearing holidays, extending paid paternity leave for men to mitigate the disproportionate employment penalties faced by women, and promoting timely flexible working arrangements and remote work models. Finally, utilizing diverse communication platforms, including online media, film, television, and literature, to highlight the achievements of outstanding women can inspire broader aspirations and strengthen their motivation toward professional success, thereby fostering greater ambition and commitment to career advancement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec45\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2.2 Create fair work scenes to show women\u0026rsquo;s professional ability from the organizational level\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational managers should acknowledge the capabilities and contributions of women by granting them greater job autonomy, ensuring equal access to training and professional development opportunities, and amplifying their voices in decision-making processes. They should remain attentive and vigilant to subtle forms of workplace ostracism, actively monitoring the psychological well-being of female employees to detect signs of negative emotions or tendencies toward self-doubt. It is essential to offer timely encouragement and access to counseling when female employees encounter difficulties. The increasing complexity of work demands substantial time and effort from female managers. At the same time, due to persistent traditional gender roles and societal expectations for women to assume caregiving responsibilities, women often bear a disproportionate responsibility for family duties. Consequently, both organizations and society should critically reassess the fairness of applying uniform evaluation and promotion standards to male and female employees. There is a pressing need to establish more transparent, equitable, and gender-sensitive criteria for selection and promotion, along with interactive communication mechanisms that support fair competition and intergender collaboration. Furthermore, it is imperative to establish robust supervisory systems and accessible grievance channels, while platforms that enable women to express their perspectives and concerns should be institutionalized. These measures are essential for mitigating the conflict between professional responsibilities and familial obligations, thereby reducing the pressures associated with job retention and career advancement for women.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec46\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2.3 Create a self-consistent professional attitude towards women\u0026rsquo;s career aspirations at the individual level\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWomen should cultivate self-confidence and self-worth while actively guarding against the detrimental effects of imposter syndrome. They ought to leverage their unique strengths by understanding others\u0026rsquo; feelings and adopting a considerate interpersonal approach, such as empathy, perspective-taking, and emotional sensitivity. These qualities can contribute to shaping a positive organizational image that reflects both internal inclusivity and external social responsibility. Women often demonstrate strong communication and persuasion abilities, attention to detail, and a heightened capacity for inclusion, all of which are instrumental in fostering diverse and cohesive team environments within organizations. Furthermore, women are encouraged to clarify their personal interests, define clear career goals, and pursue independent intellectual and spiritual growth. Concurrently, it is essential to strengthen professional competencies and enhance job-specific skills. Moreover, Women should also develop a strategic awareness of the broader organizational and societal context, including the ability to discern underlying dynamics, embrace calculated risks, manage change effectively, and navigate complex challenges. Given their heightened sensitivity to environmental cues, it is particularly important for women to develop emotional regulation strategies when encountering stigmatization, while maintaining a respectful and collaborative demeanor toward stakeholders throughout their career development. In response to constructive criticism, women should engage in reflective practice to support continuous improvement. At the same time, when confronted with stigmatization or unfair treatment from society, organizations, or family members, women must promptly recognize such challenges and firmly assert their positions to safeguard their legitimate rights and professional interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec47\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3 Limitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom the perspective of female employees, there are still unexplored factors contributing to the formation of the \"glass cliff\" phenomenon. Similarly, the perception of female stigmatization can also lead to various psychological changes and behavioral outcomes. Future scholars can delve deeper into these underlying causes and external influential factors to further enhance our understanding of the formation mechanisms of the \"glass cliff\" phenomenon in China. This study did not focus on the impact of specific industries on female employees' perception of stigmatization. However, in reality, the degree of stigmatization perceived by women, as well as its impact, varies significantly across different industries. Future research could therefore consider focusing on more granular conditions, such as specific roles and industries. Consequently, future research designs warrant further optimization and innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Details\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors received the following financial support for the research: the Youth Development Project at the author's university(24SKGC-QT02).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Conflicting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclosure statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors report there are no competing interests to declare.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Review Committee at the author's university on July 11, 2023. The methodologies and procedures employed in this study adhere to universally recognized scientific and ethical standards for research involving human participants, without any ethical controversies. All participants have been explicitly informed about the purpose, procedures, and potential outcomes of the research prior to their involvement. They have voluntarily participated without any form of coercion or undue pressure. This study has strictly followed the ethical guidelines and norms of the aforementioned Ethics Review Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained in online written form in September 2023 from all participants in the study prior to data collection. This consent covers participation in the research, the academic analysis of anonymized response data, and the publication of research findings. The consent process was administered directly by members of the research team. As this study involves non-interventional research, all participants were fully informed that their anonymity was guaranteed, the reasons for conducting the research, how their data would be utilized, and that there were no associated risks to participation. Participants were also clearly informed of the study's purpose, procedures, potential benefits, and their right to withdraw consent and discontinue participation at any time without penalty. All explanations and information were provided in a language understandable to the participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAelenei C, Yvette Assilam\u0026eacute;hou-Kunz, Iacoviello V, Kulich C. (2020). The Political Glass Cliff: When Left-Wing Orientation Leads to Minority Candidate Choices for Hard-to-Win Seats. European Review of Applied Psychology, 70(3). doi:10.1016/j.erap.2019.100514.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlejandra V, Nora G, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez Francisca, Molina Agust\u0026iacute;n. (2018). Gender and Ageing at Work in Chile: Employment, Working Conditions, Work-Life Balance and Health of Men and Women in an Ageing Workforce. Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 62(4), 475-489. doi:10.1093/annweh/wxy021. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson C, Hildreth J A D, Howland L. (2015). Is the Desire for Status a Fundamental Human Motive? A Review of the Empirical Literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574-601. doi:10.1037/a0038781.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson C, Kilduff G J. (2009). Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence in Face-to-Face Groups? The Competence-Signaling Effects of Trait Dominance. Journal of Personality \u0026amp; Social Psychology, 96(2), 491-503. doi:10.1037/a0014201.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsadullah M A, Ul Haq M Z, Wahba K, Hashmi S, Kim H M, Hwang J. (2021). Gender differences and employee performance: Evidence from the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 248-255. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.06.015.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAshby J, Ryan M K, Haslam S A. (2007). Legal Work and the Glass Cliff: Evidence That Women are Preferentially Selected to Lead Problematiccases. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 13(3), 775-794.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeckmann D, Menkhoff L. (2008). Will Women Be Women? Analyzing the Gender Difference among Financial Experts. Kyklos, 61, 364-384. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00406.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBendersky C, Hays N A. (2012). Status Conflict in Groups. Organization Science, 23(2), 323-340. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0734.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBendersky C, Pai J. (2018). Status Dynamics.Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1). doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104602.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenenson J F. (2022). Human Females as a Dispersal-Egalitarian Species: A Hypothesis about Women and Status. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 8(4), 433-460. doi:10.1007/s40750-022-00191-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerger J, Cohen B P, Zelditch M. (1972). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction[J].American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241. doi:10.2307/2093465.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlais A R, Weber E U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale for Adult Populations. Judgment \u0026amp; Decision Making, 1(1), 33-47.doi:10.1017/S1930297500000334.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBothner M S, Kim Y K, Smith E B. (2012). How Does Status Affect Performance? Status as an Asset vs. Status as a Liability in the PGA and NASCAR. Organization Science, 23(2), 416-433. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0679.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrady D, Isaacs K, Reeves M, Burroway R, Reynolds M. (2011). Sector, Size, Stability, and Scandal: Explaining the Presence of Female Executives in Fortune 500 Firms. Gender in Management, 26(1), 3041-3053. doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2011.08224.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurke P J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 836-849. doi:10.2307/2096259.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCardoso P, Marques J F. (2008). Perception of Career Barriers: The Importance of Gender and Ethnic Variables. International Journal for Educational \u0026amp; Vocational Guidance, 8(1), 49-61. doi:10.1007/s10775-008-9135-y.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen Yuling, Li Xiang, Chen Weizheng, et al. (2022). Scale Development and Impact Validation of Female Leaders\u0026apos; Stigma Consciousness. Human Resources Development of China, 39(08), 6-25. doi:10.16471/j.cnki.11-2822/c.2022.8.001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheng J T, Tracy J L, Foulsham T, Kingstone A, Henrich J. (2013). Two Ways to the Top: Evidence That Dominance and Prestige are Distinct yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence. Journal of Personality \u0026amp; Social Psychology, 104(1), 103-125. doi:10.1037/a0030398.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClance P R, Dingman D, Reviere S L, Stober D R. (1995). Impostor Phenomenon in an Interpersonal / Social Context: Origins and Treatment. Women and Therapy, 16(4), 79-96. doi:10.1300/J015v16n04_07.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClance P R, Imes S A. (1978). The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention. Psychotherapy, Theory, Research and Practice, 15(3), 241-247. doi:10.1037/h0086006.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClance P R. The Impostor Phenomenon: Overcoming the Fear that Haunts your Success[M]. Peachtree Publishers, Atlanta, G A, 1985.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCowman S E, Ferrari J R. (2002). \u0026quot;Am I for Real?\u0026quot; Predicting Impostor Tendencies from Self-Handicapping and Affective Components. Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal, 30(2), 119-126. doi:10.2224/sbp.2002.30.2.119.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDarouei M, Pluut H. (2018). The Paradox of Being on the Glass Cliff: Why Do Women Accept Risky Leadership Positions?. Career Development International, 23(4), 397-426. doi:10.1108/CDI-01-2018-0024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDudau D. (2014). The Relation between Perfectionism and Impostor Phenomenon. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127(22), 129-133. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.226.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvans M C. (1954). The achievement motive. American Journal of Sociology, 19(6), 477-478. doi:10.2307/2087929.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerris D L, Brown D J, Berry J W, Lian, H. (2008). The Development and Validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348-1366. doi:10.1037/a0012743.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFleischhauer M, Wossidlo J, Michael L, Enge S. (2021). The impostor phenomenon: Toward a better understanding of the nomological network and gender differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.764030.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFolkman S, Lazarus R S. Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press, 1988.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrijda N H. Emotions and Social Behavior: A Multidimensional Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlass C, Cook A. (2016). Leading at the Top: Understanding Women\u0026apos;s Challenges above the Glass Ceiling. Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 51-63. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHannah S T, Avolio B J, Luthans F, Harms P D. (2008). Leadership Efficacy: Review and Future Directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669-692. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarvey J C. The Impostor Phenomenon and Achievement: A Failure to Internalize Success. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(12-B, Pt 1), 4969-4970.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHays N A. Social Climbing: A Contextual Approach to Understanding the Effects of Social Hierarchy on Individual Cognition and Behavior. University of California, Los Angeles, 2012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHitlan R T, Noel J. (2009). The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist perspective. European Journal of Work \u0026amp; Organizational Psychology, 18(4), 477-502. doi:10.1080/13594320903025028.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoyt C L, Blascovich J. (2010). The role of leadership self-efficacy and stereotype activation on cardiovascular, behavioral and self-report responses in the leadership domain.The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 89-103.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuberman B A, Loch C H, Onculer A. (2004). Status as A Valued Resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1),103-114. doi:10.1177/019027250406700109.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHunt J G, Boal K B, Dodge G E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 423-448. doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(99)00027-2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHutchins H M, Penney L M, Sublett L W. (2018). What Imposters Risk at Work: Exploring Imposter Phenomenon, Stress Coping, and Job Outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(1), 31-48. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21304.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIhmels A, Haslam S A, Shemla M, Wegge J. (2023). Through a Glass Cliff Darkly Evidence That the Media Visibility of Companies Moderates Their Willingness to Appoint Women to Leadership Positionsin Times of Crisis. Zeitschrift f\u0026uuml;r Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 67 (2), 107\u0026ndash;115. doi:10.1026/0932-4089/a000406.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIwasaki I, Ma X. (2020). Gender Wage Gap in China: A Large Meta-Analysis. Journal for Labour Market Research, 54. doi:10.1186/s12651-020-00279-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJalalzai F. (2008). Women Rule: Shattering the Executive Glass Ceiling. Politics \u0026amp; Gender, 4(2), 205-231. doi:10.1017/S1743923X08000317.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJanssen O, Gao L. (2015). Supervisory Responsiveness and Employee Self-Perceived Status and Voice Behavior. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1854-1872. doi:10.1177/0149206312471386.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJiang, Zhang, Wang, Lu, Xu. (2011). Workplace Ostracism in China:The Moderating Effects of Gender on Psychological Health and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Psychological Science, 34(3), 686-691. doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2011.03.024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJun, Liu, Ho, et al. (2013). Work-to-Family Spillover Effects of Workplace Ostracism: The Role of Work-Home Segmentation Preferences. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 75-93. doi:10.1002/hrm.21513.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeith D. Dorsey. (2023). From Glass Ceilings to Glass Cliffs: A Guide to Jumping, not Falling. MIT Sloan Management Review.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoski J E, Xie H, Olson I R. (2015). Understanding social hierarchies: the neural and psychological foundations of status perception. Soc Neurosci, 10(5), 527-550. doi:10.1080/17470919.2015.1013223.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKruger J, Dunning D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One\u0026rsquo;s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121\u0026ndash;1134. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLam A, Lambermont-Ford J P. (2010). Knowledge sharing in organisational contexts: a motivation-based perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 51-66. doi:10.1108/13673271011015561.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLamptey A O, \u0026amp; Lee W. (2022). Between Stigma and Status: The Experiences of Generation Z Ghanaian Female Taekwondo Athletes. Research in Dance and Physical Education. doi:10.26584/rdpa.2022.08.6.2.1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeary M R, Patton K M, Orlando A E, Wagoner Funk W. (2000). The Impostor Phenomenon: Self-Perceptions, Reflected Appraisals, and Interpersonal Strategies. Journal of Personality, 68(4), 725-756. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00114.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLekchiri S, Crowder C, Schnerre A, Eversole B A W. (2019). Perceived workplace gender-bias and psychological impact. European Journal of Training and Development, 43(34), 339-353. doi:10.1108/EJTD-09-2018-0088. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLepine J A, van Dyne L. (2001). Peer Responses to Low Performers: An Attributional Model of Helping in the Context of Groups. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 67-84. doi:10.2307/259395. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMajor B, O\u0026apos;Brien L T. (2005). The Social Psychology of Stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393-421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMark M, Carol L. (2013). Females and Precarious Board Positions: Further Evidence of the Glass Cliff. British Journal of Management, 25(3), 425-438. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12046.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhn N Y, Cunningham G B. (2016). Cultural Values and Gender Equity on National Olympic Committee Boards. International Journal of Exercise Science, 10(6), 857-874. doi:10.70252/SZZQ7147.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNesti G. (2022). Career and family. Women\u0026apos;s century-long journey toward equity. Regional Studies, 56(12), 2207-2208. doi:10.1080/00343404.2022.2133451.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewton N J, Stewart A J. (2013). The road not taken: Women\u0026rsquo;s life paths and gender-linked personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 306-316. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.02.003. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinel E C. (1999). Stigma Consciousness: The Psychological Legacy of Social Stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 114-128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.114.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRudman L A, Glick P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004-1010. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan M K, Haslam S A, Morgenroth T, Rink F, Stoker J, Peters K. (2016). Getting on Top of the Glass Cliff: Reviewing a Decade of Evidence, Explanations, and Impact. Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 446-455. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.008.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan M K, Haslam S A, Postmes T. (2007). Reactions to the Glass Cliff: Gender Differences in the Explanations for the Precariousness of Women\u0026apos;s Leadership Positions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(2),182-197. doi:10.1108/09534810710724748.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan M K, Haslam S A. (2005). The Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women Are Over-Represented in Precarious Leadership Positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81-90. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan M K, Haslam S A. (2007). The Glass Cliff: Exploring the Dynamics Surrounding the Appointment of Women to Precarious Leadership Positions. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 549-572. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.24351856.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan M, Haslam A. (2006). What Lies Beyond the Glass Ceiling?The glass cliff and the potential precariousness of women\u0026apos;s leadership positions. Human Resource Management International Digest, 14(3), 3-5. doi:10.1108/09670730610663150.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSantoniccolo F, Trombetta T, Paradiso M N. (2023). Gender and Media Representations: A Review of the Literature on Gender Stereotypes, Objectification and Sexualization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10). doi:10.3390/ijerph20105770.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi Xinjie, Shen Yu. (2023). Mental health penalties of having a child: findings from the China family panel studies. NPJ Mental Health Research, 2(1), 7. doi:10.1038/s44184-023-00026-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh R K, Singh S. (2022), Spirituality in the workplace: a systematic review, Management Decision, 60 (5),1296-1325. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2020-1466.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteele C M, Aronson J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSusilo,Yuniashri E, Handrito R P. (2024).Women\u0026apos;s Tendency in Work Involvement: A Study of Female Labour Force in Indonesia. Economics \u0026amp; Sociology, 17(1), 151-165. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2024/17-1/10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUzoigwe A G, Low W Y, Noor S N M. (2016). Predictors of Work-Family Role Conflict and Its Impact on Professional Women in Medicine, Engineering, and Information Technology in Nigeria. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 28(7), 629-637. doi:10.1177/1010539516667782. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Kleef G A, Cheng J T. (2020). Power, status, and hierarchy: current trends and future challenges. Current opinion in psychology, 33. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.011.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVergauwe J, De Fruyt F, Feys M, Anseel F, Wille B. (2015). Fear of Being Exposed: The Trait-Relatedness of the Impostor Phenomenon and its Relevance in the Work Context. Journal of business and psychology, 30(3), 565-581. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9382-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVinnicombe S, Doldor E, Turner C. (2014). The Female FTSE Board Report 2014: Crossing the finish line. Cranfield University School of Management Website.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKets de Vries M F R. (2005). The Dangers of Feeling like a Fake. Harvard Business Review, 83(9), 108-116. doi:10.1007/s10726-005-1403-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVuuren J V, Aldersey H M. (2020). Stigma, Acceptance and Belonging for People with IDD Across Cultures.Current developmental disorders reports, 7(3), 163-172. doi:10.1007/s40474-020-00206-w.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWant J, Kleitman S. (2006). Imposter Phenomenon and Self-Handicapping: Links with Parenting Styles and Self-Confidence. Personality \u0026amp; Individual Differences, 40(5), 961-971. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeber E U, Ann-Ren\u0026eacute;e Blais, Betz N E. (2002). A Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263-290. doi:10.1002/bdm.414.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeber M. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press, 1978.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeiss H M, Cropanzano R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 1-74. doi:10.1177/030639689603700317.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiller, Robb. (2009). Groups Reward Individual Sacrifice: The Status Solution to the Collective Action Problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23-43. doi:10.1177/000312240907400102.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams K D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 425-452. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams M, Polman E. (2015). Is It Me or Her? How Gender Composition Evokes Interpersonally Sensitive Behavior on Collaborative Cross-Boundary Projects. Organization Science, 26(2), 334-355. doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0941.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim Y, Jung J, Na J. (2022). Socioeconomic status differences in psychological responses to unfair treatments: Behavioral evidence of a vicious cycle. PLoS ONE, 17(6): e0268286. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268286.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang X, Dai L. (2015). The Relationship between Neuroticism and Experience of Workplace Ostracism in New Employees. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 80-87. doi:10.4236/jss.2015.32011.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu Y, Konrad A M, Jiao H. (2016). Violation and activation of gender expectations: Do Chinese managerial women face a narrow band of acceptable career guanxi strategies?. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(1), 53-86. doi:10.1007/s10490-015-9435-y. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Glass Cliff, Female Stigma Perception, Status Competitive Motive, Impostor Syndrome, Workplace Ostracism","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7543643/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7543643/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eBased on the career trajectories of women in the new era and the phenomenon of the 'glass cliff'\u0026mdash;where women are more likely to be promoted to leadership positions during organizational crises, grounded in the emotional events theory, this study investigates the mechanism of how female stigma perception affects the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions. Using multilevel regression analysis based on data collected from 278 valid questionnaires, the findings reveal that female\u0026rsquo;s heightened stigma perception increases the likelihood of choosing high-risk leadership positions. High stigma perception enhance the competition motive for dominant status, which in turn amplifies the choice tendency of high-risk leadership positions. Conversely, low stigma perception fosters the competition motive for attaining prestige status, which diminishes the willingness to assume high-risk leadership positions. Furthermore, the impostor phenomenon negatively moderates the relationship between stigma perception and competition motive for prestige status, while workplace ostracism positively moderates the relationship between stigma perception and competition motive for dominant status. The study concludes with recommendations directed at the societal institutional level, organizational management practices, and individual level.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Impact of Female Stigma Perception on the Tendency to Choose High-Risk Leadership Positions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-06 06:06:10","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7543643/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7a82aff5-0b3a-46cb-b0aa-10d7d68a061f","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":57401780,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":57401781,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":57401782,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-26T17:38:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-06 06:06:10","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7543643","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7543643","identity":"rs-7543643","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}