Posts in category: Dating Tips, Guide and Advice

Uses and gratifications theory (UGT) proposes that people choose to consume certain kinds of media because they expect to obtain specific gratifications as a result of those selections.

In contrast to other theories about media, UGT focuses on the media consumer rather than the media itself or the messages the media conveys.

While other theories see people as passive recipients of media messages, UGT sees people as active consumers of media who are aware of the reasons they choose to consume media.

History of Uses and Gratifications Theory

The origins of UGT can be traced back to the 1940s when communication scholars initially sought to study why specific media and content appealed to different people. The theory was further expanded in the 1970s when researchers started examining not just the gratifications that consumers sought but the gratifications they actually obtained.

Today UGT remains one of the most prevalent theories used in media effects research. In fact, communication scholar Ruggiero argued that the rise of new media makes uses and gratifications theory more important than ever as this perspective is especially useful for explaining why people adopt new mediums.

Assumptions of Uses and Gratifications Theory

A cornerstone of UGT is that audiences are active in choosing the media they consume. Moreover, audiences are aware of the reasons they want to consume media and consciously use those reasons to make media selections that will fulfill their needs and desires.

Five Assumptions

Based on these notions, uses and gratifications theory specifies a set of five assumptions about media consumption.

The assumptions are:

1. Media use is motivated and goal-oriented. People always have a reason for consuming media, even if it’s simply habit or entertainment.
2. People select media based on their expectation that it will satisfy specific wants and needs.
3. Media use is driven by individual social and psychological factors.
4. Media compete with other forms of communication, especially in-person communication, for selection and use in the fulfillment of needs and desires. Today, since so much of the media we consume is mobile, that competition is more immediate than ever as even when engaging in in-person communication, media accessed through mobile devices, such as text messages, social networks, and apps are also competing for our attention.
5. Because people are active media users, media messages don’t exert especially strong effects on people.

Explaining Media Use With Uses and Gratification Theory

Much of UGT research focuses on the gratifications that media does or should fulfill. This has resulted in a variety of typologies that classify gratifications into a concise set of categories. For example, in 1973, Katz, Gurevitch, and Haas created a well-known scheme of five social and psychological needs gratified by media use, including:

1. Cognitive needs, or the need to acquire information and knowledge or improve understanding
2. Affective needs, or the need to have aesthetic or emotional experiences
3. Integrative needs, or the need to strengthen confidence, status, or credibility. These needs have both cognitive and affective components
4. Social integrative needs, or the need to strengthen relationships with friends and family
5. Tension-release needs, or the need to relax and escape by lessening one’s awareness of the self

These needs, as well as those specified in many other uses and gratifications typologies, are based on the gratifications consumers obtained from old media, such as books, newspapers, radio, television, and movies.

Interestingly, some more recent UGT research has suggested that new media offers similar gratifications. However, work by Sundar and Limperos observes that while old media and new media may fulfill some similar social and psychological needs, affordances of new media also create unique needs that studies of the uses and gratifications of new media may overlook.

The scholars suggest several new gratifications that fall into four categories specific to features of new media.

These four categories include:

1. Modality-based gratifications: New media content can be served up in a variety of modalities from audio to video to text. The use of these different modalities can satisfy the need for realism, novelty, or in the case of something like virtual reality, the need to feel like you’ve been somewhere.
2. Agency-based gratifications: New media gives people the ability to create and share information and content, giving each individual a certain amount of power. This can satisfy needs such as agency-enhancement, community building, and the ability to tailor content to one’s specific desires.
3. Interactivity-based gratifications: The interactivity of new media means content is no longer static. Instead, users can interact with and impact content in real time. This satisfies needs such as responsiveness and more choice and control.
4.  Navigability-based gratifications: Users move through new media, and the navigation offered by different interfaces can greatly impact users’ experiences. Positive new media navigation experiences satisfy needs such as browsing, guidance through navigation (or scaffolding), and the fun that comes with moving through spaces and, if one’s playing a game, levels.

Criticisms of Uses and Gratifications Theory

While UGT continues to be widely used in media research, it has been criticized for several reasons.

First, UGT’s’ belief that audiences are active and can articulate their reasons for consuming specific media has led to studies that rely on self-report data. However, self-report data isn’t always reliable and may not always be accurate or insightful.

Second, the idea that people freely choose the media they consume is limited by the media available to them. This may be an even more salient criticism today when there are more media choices than ever, but not everyone has access to every choice.

Third, by focusing on the audience, UGT overlooks the constraints and boundaries of media messages and how that may impact people. Finally, there has been debate about whether UGT is too broad to be considered a theory.

An IQ test, short for “intelligence quotient”, is an assessment that measures a range of cognitive abilities and provides a score that is intended to serve as a measure of an individual’s intellectual abilities and potential. IQ tests are among the most administered psychological tests.

That being said, while IQ scores can determine intellectual potential or someone’s expected capabilities, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re smart. Intelligence comes from so many different emotional and experiential places there is no one test to determine how smart someone is. IQ tests are helpful for some things—like determining disability—and less so for others.

To understand what these scores truly mean, it is essential to look at exactly how these test scores are calculated. Today, many IQ tests are standardized, and scores are derived by comparing individual performance against the norm for people in that age group.

While many tests utilize similar methods to derive their scores, it is also important to note that each IQ test is different. Additionally, scoring methods may not be the same from one test to another.

Types of IQ Tests

There are several different intelligence tests in existence and their content can vary considerably. Some are used for adults, but many are specifically designed to be administered to children.

Some commonly used intelligence tests include:

Which IQ test is best or more accurate? Unfortunately, there is no consensus on this. Instead, some suggest that each test measures a different notion of intelligence, thus IQ test scores can vary depending on what is being measured and the test being taken.

What are they used for?

IQ tests can be used for a wide range of purposes, including:

• Educational assessment and placement
• Assessment and diagnosis of intellectual disability
• Cognitive research
• Job candidate evaluation
• Assessing cognitive abilities including memory, speed, and attention

Impact of IQ Testing

IQ can have an impact on different areas of life, including school and work. High scores are often associated with higher achievement in school, while lower scores may be linked to some form of intellectual disability.

The following is a rough breakdown of various IQ score ranges. Some tests present scores differently and with differing interpretations of what those scores might mean.

IQ Classifications
IQ Level	Descriptive Classification
130+	Very Superior
120 to 129	Superior
110 to 119	High Average
90 to 109	Average
80 to 89	Low Average
70 to 79	Borderline
69 & below	Intellectual Disability

Intelligence test scores typically follow what is known as a normal distribution, or a bell-shaped curve in which most scores lie near or around the average IQ test score. For example, the majority of scores (about 68%) on the Wechsler IQ tests tend to lie between plus 15 or minus 15 points from the average score of 100.

This means that approximately 68% of people who take this IQ test will score somewhere between 85 and 115. As you look further toward the extreme ends of the distribution, scores tend to become less common.

In many cases, an IQ test score that falls below 70 is considered low IQ, while a score of above 140 indicates high IQ. In the past, scores below 70 were used as a marker to identify intellectual disabilities. Today, test scores alone are not enough to diagnose an intellectual disability as diagnosticians also consider factors such as the age of onset and adaptive skills.

How common are very high IQ test scores?

Very few individuals (approximately 0.2%) receive a score of more than 145 (indicating a very high IQ) or less than 55 (indicating a very low IQ) on an IQ test.

How to Interpret Your Score

To understand what your IQ test score really means, it can be helpful to know how these tests are designed and how your score compares to others. Your score on an IQ test can tell you how you compare to others in your peer group regarding:

• Language skills
• Mathematical abilities
• Memory
• Processing speed
• Reasoning abilities
• Visual-spatial processing

To adequately assess and interpret IQ test scores, scientists who develop these tests use a process known as standardization. This involves administering the test to a representative sample of the population that will eventually take the test.

This initial sample represents the total population as accurately as possible and reflects many of the things that are present in the general population. This allows IQ test developers to establish norms or standards by which individual scores can be compared.

Potential Pitfalls of IQ Tests

IQ testing has been controversial throughout history for a few reasons, including:

• Discrimination: IQ tests have been used to justify eugenicist movements and discrimination against minority groups and disabled individuals.
• Validity: Not all experts agree on a standard definition of intelligence, so not all IQ tests measure the same things.
• Reliability: There is also the question of how reliable these tests are. Reliable IQ tests should provide consistent results. Put another way, people should score roughly the same each time they take the test.

While higher IQ test scores are linked to increased health, academic performance, and overall well-being, these scores do not necessarily predict an individual’s success in life. It is important to remember that IQ tests are only one measure of intelligence.

What factors can affect my score?

Many factors can influence IQ and scores can change over time. Some of the factors that can impact a person’s IQ test score include:

• Educational access and background
• Nutrition
• Culture
• Environment
• Overall health and medical conditions

Many experts believe that other important elements contribute to intelligence, including social and emotional factors. Some experts even suggest that these social and emotional skills actually matter more than IQ when it comes to determining success in life. 

History of IQ Tests

French psychologist Alfred Binet was the first to develop a formal test of intelligence and a form of his original IQ test is still in use today as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. Later, psychologist Charles Spearman developed a concept of general intelligence, or general mental ability to perform a wide variety of cognitive tasks.

Psychologist Robert Yerkes developed IQ tests for the U.S. Army during World War I to test army recruits. During the 1950s, David Wechsler developed IQ tests for use with children and adults. These tests remain popular today.

Where to get tested

If you want to take a formal IQ test, a licensed psychologist can provide this service for you. This mental health professional is trained to administer and supervise IQ tests, also ensuring that the test used is valid and reliable.

Several online sites also offer free IQ tests if you’re more interested in knowing how you score but don’t need a formal test. When selecting a free IQ test provider, it can be helpful to choose an organization that is reputable in the field of intelligence. For example, Mensa International offers a free online IQ test.

Keep in Mind

While IQ test scores can reveal information about an individual’s abilities in certain domains, it is important to remember that other factors—including such things as adaptive skills, emotional intelligence, and task performance—are also important indicators of an individual’s capabilities.

Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read our editorial process to learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.

1. Kaufman A. IQ Testing 101.

2. Mensa International. What is IQ?

3. Stangor C. 10.1 Defining and Measuring Intelligence. Introduction to Psychology. Version 2.1.

4. De Boeck P, Fore LR, González T, San Martín E. An alternative view on the measurement of intelligence and its history. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. 2020:47-74. doi:10.1017/9781108770422.005

5. Deary IJ, Strand S, Smith P, Fernandez C. Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence. 2007;35:13–21. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.001

6. Brinch CN, Galloway TA. Schooling in adolescence raises IQ scores. PNAS. 2012;109(2):425‐430. doi:10.1073/pnas.1106077109

7. Bartholomew D. Measuring Intelligence.

Additional Reading

• Breedlove SM. Principles of Psychology.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the “Everything Psychology Book.”

Thanks for your feedback!

What is your feedback?

Helpful

Report an Error

Other

The Cultural Dimensions Theory was developed by Geert Hofstede and his colleagues to explain the way different cultures impact the people who live in them. The study started as an examination of Hofstede’s colleagues across IBM’s offices around the world. At the time, he only included four dimensions in his theory, which he published in 1980: Power Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Masculinity versus Femininity, and Uncertainty Avoidance.

Then, with the help of Michael Harris Bond, a Canadian social psychologist working in Hong Kong, he added Long-term Orientation versus Short-Term Orientation in the 1980s. And in 2010, through his work with Michael Minkov, a Bulgarian linguist, Indulgence versus Restraint was added.

Let’s dive into the six dimensions that make up the theory, their significance in psychology, and take a look at some real world examples.

Who Is Geert Hofstede?

Geert Hofstede was a social psychologist who was born in 1928 in the Netherlands. World War II, a defining event in his life, began when he was 12. He became an engineer during the years the country struggled to rebuild but soon became fascinated by the human’s role in the system, and, therefore, decided to turn his attention to psychology.

He did a PhD in organizational behavior and landed a job at IBM International where he first started conducting his research on the company’s culture in the late 1960s. That led to his first book, 1980’s Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, which was the beginning of cross-cultural psychology as a serious discipline.

Hofstede was named one of the 20 most influential business thinkers of the 20^th century by the Wall Street Journal and numerous universities have bestowed honorary doctorates on him. He died on February 12, 2020.

The Six Cultural Dimensions

Hofstede’s research helps people understand the differences between world cultures along six dimensions. The dimensions are as follows:

Power Distance

This is the degree to which people in a society expect to be equal. Carl Nassar, PhD, LPC, a professional counselor in Denver, CO, had this to say about power distance. “There’s inequality in all cultures, but ask yourself: Are you in a culture where you’ve got a relatively equal distribution of power (a ‘low power distance index’) or a culture where the power is held by the few and dictated to the many (a ‘high power distance index’)?”

Individualism vs. Collectivism

This is the degree to which people focus on their groups. Individualistic societies, like the United States, strongly value personal achievement and focus on individual needs, whereas in collectivist societies, achievements and decisions are made with the group in mind.

“How focused is the culture on ‘I’ instead of on ‘we?’” says Nassar. “Do individuals look out for themselves (‘it’s every person for themselves’), or do we look out for each other (‘we’ll rise together and we’ll fall together’.)”

Masculinity vs. Femininity

This is the preference for masculine versus feminine traits in a society.

As Nassar observes, “It’s no surprise to learn the [United States] has a low femininity score.” In masculine cultures, differences in gender roles are very dramatic, whereas in feminine cultures, the roles are fairly fluid.

Uncertainty Avoidance

This dimension deals with how much a society can cope with uncertainty of the future.

While every culture must deal with this, cultures with high uncertainty avoidance rely on their set rules and structures about the way things are done to deal with it, whereas those with low uncertainty avoidance are more relaxed.

As Nassar shares, this dimension boils down to, “Are you willing to take risks and deal with the anxiety this causes, or do you prefer to create structures that keep things organized but also reduce risk and opportunity?”

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

This dimension looks at the extent to which people are willing to forego short-term gains for future rewards, in particular, by emphasizing the virtues of persistence, saving, and thrift. On the opposite end of the spectrum is foregoing future rewards for short-term gains in the past or the present, with an emphasis on immediate gratification and quick results.

Indulgence vs. Restraint

This dimension deals with how much your culture satisfies human needs or desires versus how much you hold back on your desires to satisfy societal norms. As Nassar puts it, “How’s your impulse control? Do you tend to go for instant gratification, or do you hold off, in part through social norms, deferring gratification…”

For instance, indulgent cultures tend to focus more on individual well-being and personal freedom, whereas happiness and freedom are not given the same level of importance in restrained cultures.

The Significance of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Theory continues to be the go-to theory for understanding cultures around the globe. As Alyssa Roberts, a practicing psychologist, researcher, and writer at Practical Psychology shares, “Hofstede’s research is so incredibly relevant to this day that it continues to be the basis for assessing how a culture behaves and what kind of cultural adaptation people from different countries need to undergo in order to fully adapt [to a new country].”

Hofstede’s theory can tell you a lot about the different cultures of the world by dividing them along these six dimensions.

The significance of the theory comes down to this: “For most of humanity’s 200,000 year history on this planet, we grew up in villages…,” Nassar says. “But, beginning some 20,000 years ago, and accelerating over the past 500 years, the collective village cultures of the earth were overrun by a consumer culture, a culture that abandoned the security we found with each other and replaced it with the security of individual fiscal wealth.

Real-World Applications and Examples

Roberts has spent a lot of time in different places around the world, and that has driven home the value of Hofstede’s Six Cultural Dimensions. She’s provided examples of each dimension in action here:

• Power Distance can be very different between cultures. “In some Latin American countries, children are taught from a young age to use formal titles when addressing parents, teachers, or other authority figures,” Roberts says. “This ingrained hierarchy contrasts with Nordic cultures where children call teachers by their first names.”
• Individualism vs. Collectivism emerged for Roberts when she worked with immigrant families in the United States. “Those from collectivist societies like China prioritized family cohesion and group goals over individual pursuits. However, their American-born children tended to absorb more individualistic values causing intergenerational conflicts.”
• Masculinity vs. Femininity is seen in whether cultures are more equal or more traditional.  As Roberts explains, “I counseled a couple struggling to adjust after moving from egalitarian Sweden to traditional India. The wife felt increasing constraints around appropriate ‘feminine’ roles contrasting with the overlapping gender roles in Scandinavia.”
• Uncertainty Avoidance is experienced by all cultures but some are more prone to take risks than others. “A Japanese exchange student experiencing intense homesickness and difficulty adapting to ambiguous college social norms [was evidence of this],” observes Roberts. “This reflected the security his uncertainty-avoidant native culture provided around social structures and rules.” And the lack of uncertainty-avoidant social norms he experienced at his new college.”
• Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation is the extent to which a culture prepares for the future. Above, Nassar provided one example of short-term orientation: the United States. Roberts provides another examples, “the forward-thinking mindset instilled in many Asian cultures,” which is oriented toward the long-term.
• Indulgence vs. Restraint is experienced in how much people are free to be themselves in public. For Roberts, this “underpinned an Egyptian client’s chronic stress. She found the German culture of strict social restraints and norms around fun-seeking to be at odds with the indulgent festivity permeating Egyptian social life.”

Final Thoughts

While these dimensions are a popular tool for cross-cultural psychologists and businesses, it’s important to remember that these dimensions are generalizations. Therefore, they may not describe everyone from a specific culture.

Nonetheless, Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory has stood the test of time to show the six dimensions that affect the ways people from different cultures interact.

The ESFJ personality type is one of the 16 personality types identified by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). People with an ESFJ personality type tend to be outgoing, loyal, organized, and tender-hearted, which is why they are sometimes known as “The Caregiver” or “The Consul.”

Because they are extroverts, ESFJs love spending time with others. In fact, they gain a lot of energy by interacting with other people. You might recognize them as being outgoing, gregarious, and conscientious.

ESFJs also have a way of encouraging other people to be their best. They are good at empathizing with others and tend to see the best in people, which means they sometimes have a hard time believing anything bad about the people they are close to.

Characteristics of the ESFJ Personality Type

You can often spot an ESFJ by looking at some of they main characteristics. Because they are so warm, extroverted, kind, helpful, and conscientious, it’s often easy to identify them. People with an ESFJ personality type tend to:

• Be sensitive to the needs and feelings of others
• They derive their value system from external sources, including the community at large, rather than from intrinsic, ethical, and moral guidelines
• Enjoy helping others
• Expect their kind and giving ways to be noticed and appreciated by others
• Get easily hurt by unkindness or indifference
• Have a need for approval
• Provide care for others
• Want to be liked by others

ESFJs raised with high values and standards tend to grow up to be generous adults. Conversely, those raised in a less generous environment may not be as naturally in tune with giving to others and be more focused on themselves.

Those with an ESFJ personality type are naturally geared toward understanding other people. They are careful observers of others and are adept at supporting and bringing out the best in people. Because they are so good at helping others feel good about themselves, people often feel drawn to ESFJs.

Although ESFJs are people-pleasers, they are not pushovers. They enjoy helping others, but setting and maintaining clear boundaries allows them to protect themselves from being taken advantage of. Those with poor boundaries, however, risk being overly deferential to the needs and opinions of others.

Cognitive Functions of the ESFJ Personality Type

The MBTI suggests that there are several cognitive functions (which are identified as thinking, sensing, feeling, and intuition) that help shape each individual’s personality. The hierarchical ordering of these functions is what contributes to the makeup of each personality type. Each function is expressed either inwardly (introverted) or outwardly (extroverted).

Dominant: Extroverted Feeling (Fe)

The extroverted feeling function (Fe) involves thinking about emotions in a way that helps people better understand their own feelings as well as those of other people. Because this is the dominant function for the ESFJ personality type, so people with this type of personality tend to consider everyone’s emotions when making decisions.

ESFJs tend to make decisions based on their emotions and concern for others. As a result, they tend to consider the personal impact of a decision more than objective criteria.

This tendency can be great in some ways, as it allows them to make choices rather quickly. However, on the negative side, it can sometimes lead to overly harsh judgments of others. They might rush to judgment based on their immediate impressions but then struggle to change their mind when new information comes to light.

Auxiliary: Introverted Sensing (Si)

The introverted sensing function (Si) helps strike a balance between the dominant extroverted feeling function. Rather than making rash decisions based solely on gut reactions and emotional responses, the introverted sensing function helps the ESFJ pause and consider the outcomes of their actions.

Tertiary: Extroverted Intuition (Ne)

Extroverted intuition (Ne) is the tertiary function for the ESFJ personality type. This function is important in supporting the dominant Fe function since it helps the ESFJ learn more about the world around them.

This cognitive function helps ESFJs make connections and find creative solutions to problems. ESFJs are known to explore the possibilities when looking at a situation. They can often find patterns that allow them to gain insights into people and experiences.

Inferior: Introverted Thinking (Ti)

Someone with an ESFJ personality type is organized and likes to plan things out in advance. Planning helps ESFJs feel more in control of the world around them.

Introverted thinking (Ti) is the part of the ESFJ’s personality that tends to represent their weakest points. This function can help the ESFJ analyze information and make good decisions, but because this function tends to be weaker than their other functions, it means that this is an area where they might also struggle.

This aspect of personality helps the ESFJ analyze complex information, but it is often a point of weakness, especially when making sense of abstract or theoretical concepts.

ESFJs and Personal Relationships

As extroverts, ESFJs love spending time with other people. Not only do they gain energy from social interaction, but they are also genuinely interested in the well-being of others. They are frequently described as warm-hearted and empathetic, and they will often put the needs of others ahead of their own.

They typically feel insecure in uncertain or chaotic situations. While this makes ESFJs well suited to positions that involve managing or supervising people, it can also lead to conflicts when they try to control people who do not welcome such direction.

Career Paths for the ESFJ Personality Type

Because ESFJs enjoy helping others, they often do well in practical settings that involve taking a caregiver role. Social service and healthcare careers are two areas in which ESFJs may excel at applying their helping nature and desire for order.

ESFJs have many traits that make them ideally suited to certain careers. For example, their dependability and innate need to take care of others mean that they often do well in jobs that involve supporting and caring for people, such as nursing or teaching.

Tips for Interacting With ESFJs

If you know someone with an ESFJ personality, there are things that you can do that can help strengthen your relationship and improve your interactions.

Friendships

ESFJ can be selfless to the point of overlooking their own needs to ensure that other people are happy. Being a good friend to someone with this personality type means you should express your appreciation of their giving nature and make sure that you reciprocate their kindness.

ESFJs get along best with people who value them and make them feel appreciated. Relationships are important to people with a Consul personality, and they tend to avoid relationships where they might face a great deal of conflict or criticism.

Parenting

Children with an ESFJ personality type are responsible and enjoy spending time with their families. However, your child needs regular encouragement. Show your involvement by showing enthusiasm and support for their interests and activities.

These children also have a strong need for routine. Establish rules and stick to them. ESFJ children feel more assured and confident when they know what they can expect.

Relationships

In romance, ESFJs are very devoted, supportive, and loyal. They are not interested in casual relationships and are focused on developing long-term commitments. You can support your partner by showing how much you love and appreciate them. Being responsive by showing affection and returning gestures of love is important.

In terms of romantic relationships, ESFJs tend to look for relationships with honest people who are open with their emotions. In addition, they value closeness and intimacy.

Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to make the decisions. Researchers have found that this leadership style often leads to the lowest productivity among group members.

Laissez-faire leadership can have both benefits and possible pitfalls. There are also certain settings and situations where laissez-faire leadership might be the most appropriate.

To help make laissez-faire leadership more effective, leaders can check in on work performance and give regular feedback. It’s also helpful for leaders to recognize when this style should be best utilized, such as with team members who are experts at what they do. Keep reading to learn more.

Characteristics of Laissez-Faire Leadership

Laissez-faire leadership is characterized by the following:

• Hands-off approach
• Leaders provide all training and support
• Decisions are left to employees
• Comfort with mistakes
• Accountability falls to the leader

While “laissez-faire” implies a completely hands-off approach, many leaders still remain open and available to group members for consultation and feedback. They might provide direction at the beginning of a project, but then allow group members to do their jobs with little oversight.

Examples of Laissez-Faire Leadership

Here’s how laissez-faire leadership could look in different settings:

• In school: The teacher is more of an observer while students are able to do as they wish. There is a lack of expectations and discipline in the classroom.
• At work: Leaders and supervisors stand back and let their employees make decisions, also potentially letting them set their own deadlines. The laissez-faire leader doesn’t offer much feedback.
• In government: A political leader who exhibits laissez-faire leadership would leave decisions to subordinates and provide little direction.

Benefits of Laissez-Faire Leadership

Like other types of leadership, the laissez-faire style has its advantages.

• It encourages personal growth. Because leaders are so hands-off in their approach, employees have a chance to be hands-on. This leadership style creates an environment that facilitates growth and development.
• It encourages innovation. The freedom given to employees can encourage creativity and innovation.
• It allows for faster decision-making. Since there is no micromanagement, employees under laissez-faire leadership have the autonomy to make their own decisions. They are able to make quick decisions without waiting weeks for an approval process.

To benefit from these advantages, certain preconditions have to be met. For instance, if your team is full of highly skilled and experienced people capable of working on their own, this approach might work. Since these group members are experts and have the knowledge and skills to work independently, they can accomplish tasks with very little guidance.

This autonomy can be freeing to some group members and help them feel more satisfied with their work. The laissez-faire style can be used in situations where followers have a high level of passion and intrinsic motivation for their work.

Disadvantages of Laissez-Faire Leadership

Because the laissez-faire style depends so heavily on the abilities of the group, it is not very effective in situations where team members lack the knowledge or experience they need to complete tasks and make decisions. This can lead to poor job performance and less job satisfaction.

Possible disadvantages of the laissez-faire style include:

• Lack of role clarity: In some situations, the laissez-faire style leads to poorly defined roles within the group. Since team members receive little to no guidance, they might not be sure about their role within the group and what they are supposed to be doing with their time.
• Poor involvement with the group: Laissez-faire leaders are often seen as uninvolved and withdrawn, which can lead to a lack of cohesiveness within the group. Since the leader seems unconcerned with what is happening, followers sometimes pick up on this and express less care and concern for the project.
• Low accountability: Some leaders take advantage of this style as a way to avoid responsibility for the group’s failures. When goals are not met, the leader can blame members of the team for not completing tasks or living up to expectations.
• Passivity: At its worst, laissez-faire leadership represents passivity or even an outright avoidance of true leadership. In such cases, these leaders do nothing to try to motivate followers, don’t recognize the efforts of team members, and make no attempts at involvement with the group.

Strengths of Laissez-Faire Leaders

If you have a more laissez-faire approach to leadership, there are areas and situations where you might tend to do better.

• In creative fields: Working in a creative field where people tend to be highly motivated, skilled, creative, and dedicated to their work can be conducive to obtaining good results with this style.
• When working with self-managed teams: Laissez-faire leaders typically excel at providing information and background at the start of a project, which can be particularly useful for self-managed teams.
• During the early stages of a project: By giving team members all they need at the outset of an assignment, they will then have the knowledge needed to complete the task as directed.

When to Avoid Laissez-Faire Leadership

Even in situations where a laissez-faire leadership style may be helpful, such as in a creative field or with self-managed teams, it may pay to utilize a variety of leadership approaches at different phases of the work process.

Generally, this leadership style is not suitable for:

• Situations where efficiency and high productivity are the main concerns. Some people are not good at setting deadlines, managing projects, and solving problems on their own. Under this leadership style, projects can go off-track and deadlines can be missed when team members don’t get enough guidance or feedback from leaders.
• Situations that require great oversight, precision, and attention to detail. In high-stakes and high-pressure work settings where every detail needs to be perfect and completed in a timely manner, a more authoritarian or managerial style may be more appropriate.
• People who aren’t good at setting deadlines or managing projects. Using a laissez-faire approach in this type of scenario can lead to missed deadlines and poor performance, particularly if group members are unsure of what they need to be doing or do not have the skills needed to perform tasks with little to no direction.

Tips to Improve Laissez-Faire Leadership

To make laissez-faire leadership more effective, you can try:

Are You a Laissez-Faire Leader?

Try our fast and free quiz to find out if you lean toward laissez-faire leadership or one of the other styles.

This leadership styles quiz was reviewed by Rachel Goldman, PhD, FTOS.

Final Thoughts

Often dismissed as a style that leads to poor group outcomes, laissez-faire leadership can be effective in a variety of situations. If you tend to be more of a laissez-faire leader, you may find it helpful to think about the sort of situations this style might excel.

In settings where the group needs more oversight or direction, you may find that you need to consciously focus on adopting a more authoritarian or democratic approach. By examining your own style, you can hone your skills and become a better leader.

Toxic masculinity refers to a collection of offensive, harmful beliefs, tendencies, and behaviors rooted in traditional male roles but taken to an extreme. This dangerous idea of “manliness” perpetuates domination, homophobia, and aggression and can be harmful to the mental health of all genders. It also can have serious social consequences, which is how it became known as toxic masculinity.

Many definitions of toxic masculinity appear in research as well as pop culture. Toxic masculinity generally has three core ideas.

1. “Toughness”: Men should be physically strong, emotionally callous, and behaviorally aggressive.
2. Antifeminity: Men should reject traditionally feminine behaviors such as showing emotion and accepting help.
3. Power: Men should work toward obtaining power and status (social and financial) and thus gain the respect of others.

Glorification of Unhealthy Habits 

Toxic masculinity glorifies unhealthy habits, deeming self-care and medical attention only for women and discouraging men from seeing doctors. A 2011 study found that men who held the strongest beliefs about masculinity were only half as likely as men with more moderate beliefs about masculinity to get preventative health care.

Likewise, toxic masculinity promotes the idea that “real” men treat their bodies like machines, need little sleep, work out even when they’re injured, and push themselves to their physical limits. 

Research indicates that strong conformity to masculine norms fosters risky behaviors such as heavy drinking, tobacco use, and poor diet. Men who exhibit toxic masculinity tend to view these choices as normal.

Stigmatization of Mental Illness and Healthcare

Toxic masculinity also discourages men from getting mental health treatment. Depression, anxiety, substance use issues, and mental health problems may be viewed as weaknesses.

Toxic masculinity may also stress that it’s inappropriate for men to talk about their feelings. Avoiding conversations about problems or emotions may increase feelings of isolation and loneliness. 

It may also reduce men’s willingness to reach out and get help when they’re experiencing a mental health issue.

The Roles of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender

A man’s race and ethnicity may play a role in how he views masculinity as well as how others perceive him. For example, a 2013 study found that, among white college students, Asian-American men are viewed as less manly than white or Black American men.

The masculine requirement to remain stoic and be a good provider can lead to “John Henryism” in African-American men. This term is used to describe men who use high effort as a way to cope with problems, even in the face of chronic stress and discrimination. A 2016 study linked “John Henryism” to an increased risk of hypertension and depression.

The 2015 National School Climate Survey found that 85% of LGBTQ+ students reported being verbally harassed at school over their gender expression or sexual orientation.

Gender non-conforming students reported worse treatment than the kids who conform to traditional gender norms while also identifying as LGBTQ+.

Helping Behavior

Men who view themselves as very masculine are less likely to engage in what researchers call “helping behavior.” That means they are not likely to intervene when they witness bullying or when they see someone being assaulted.

A 2019 study found that toxic masculinity can prevent men from consoling a victim, calling for help, and standing up to the perpetrator. Men who endorsed the belief that men should be strong and aggressive were more likely to perceive negative social consequences associated with intervening as an active bystander.

In instances of sexual assault, for example, men who identified the most with masculine behaviors were less likely to stop the assault. The study found that men wouldn’t intervene in any conflict if they thought their reputation as being traditionally masculine might be compromised.

Toxic Masculinity Examples

Unfortunately, there can be toxic masculinity in relationships, schools, and workplaces. Here are some everyday examples:

• When a boy in school doesn’t act in traditionally masculine ways, and he is bullied by the boys in his class for being “too feminine”
• When a boy cries and his father tells him to “toughen up” or that “men don’t cry”
• When a man calls women “sluts” or “whores” for having sex outside of monogamous relationships
• When a man tells his partner what they can and cannot wear, and who they are and are not allowed to spend time with
• The violence against trans women that occurs every year by men who are threatened by a perceived violation of gender norms
• When men criticize other men for being attracted to, or in relationships with, trans women
• When a man is afraid to be emotionally vulnerable with his partner for fear of seeming “weak”
• When a man who is struggling with his mental health doesn’t want to see a therapist because he should “man up” or “power through it”

The APA’s Guidelines

Over the years, the American Psychological Association (APA) began to recognize that societal pressures placed on men can have drastic consequences for individuals as well as society.

Members of the APA created new guidelines for psychological practices that treat boys and men to help address some of the problems associated with toxic masculinity.

Researchers found that when they stripped away stereotypes and cultural expectations, there weren’t many differences in the basic behaviors between men and women. Time diary studies (studies that have participants log diary entries of their activities) showed that men enjoy caring for children just as much as women.

Differences in emotional displays between boys and girls are relatively small and not always in a stereotypical fashion. For example, a 2013 study found that adolescent boys actually display fewer externalizing emotions such as anger, than adolescent girls.

The new APA guidelines were created to help psychologists support men in breaking free of masculinity rules that do more harm than good.