Search

Men tend to achieve higher response accuracy than women on surveys of political knowledge. We investigated the possibility that this performance gap is moderated by factors that render the communicative context of a survey intellectually threatening to women and thereby induce stereotype threat. In a telephone survey of college students' political knowledge, we manipulated two factors of the survey context: the alleged diagnosticity of the question set (i.e., whether it was portrayed as being sensitive to potential gender differences) and the gender of the interviewer. Consistent with previous studies of political knowledge, men scored higher than women overall. However, as predicted, this difference was reliably moderated by the manipulated factors. Women's scores were not reliably different from men's when the survey was portrayed as nondiagnostic and when women were interviewed by female interviewers. Diagnosticity and interviewer gender had no effects on men's scores. Consistent with previous research on stereotype threat, these results suggest that explicit and implicit cues reminding women of the possibility that they might confirm a negative gender stereotype can impair their retrieval of political knowledge.

People's evaluations of stimuli may change when they verbally attempt to communicate the reasons underlying their judgments. The reported experiments demonstrate the interactive influence of expertise, verbalizability (i.e., the ease with which stimulus features can be linguistically encoded), and appraisal mode in the verbalization bias phenomenon. In Experiment 1, art novices and experts rated their liking of artworks with compositional features that were easy (e.g., figurative-naturalistic) or difficult (e.g., abstract) to verbalize. When asked to verbalize the reasons underlying their judgments, novices assigned lower ratings to abstract but not figurative works. Experts, in contrast, were not influenced by the verbalization manipulation. Experiment 2 explored the possibility that verbalization bias is attributable to a componential appraisal mode that verbalization induces, rather than the specific reasons that people articulate. We found that verbalizing reasons for liking or disliking one abstract work influenced art novices' judgments of a second work for which they did not attempt to verbalize reasons. Moreover, those who merely attempted to verbalize their perceptual experiences also exhibited this contamination effect. The results of both studies suggest that verbalizing the attributes of complex stimuli can significantly alter the way we evaluate these stimuli.

Explored individual-difference factors that might differentially predict perceived gender discrimination in a sample of 138 female and 157 male undergraduates. Differences in gender patterns in the relationship of self-esteem to perceptions of discrimination suggest that perceptions of discrimination serve different purposes for structurally privileged and disadvantaged groups. (SLD)

The authors distinguish between minimum and confirmatory standards of incompetence and hypothesize that for groups stereotyped as relatively competent (or deficient in incompetence), minimum standards of incompetence are lower (suspicion of incompetence is triggered sooner) but confirmatory standards are higher, relative to groups stereotyped as relatively incompetent. An initial study demonstrated this evidentiary pattern for male versus female targets. In Studies 2 and 3, participants were exposed to a poor-performing male or female (Study 2) or Black or White male (Study 3) trainee and were asked to record 'notable' behaviors in either their 'informal notes' (instantiating a minimum standard) or a 'formal performance log' (instantiating a confirmatory standard). Consistent with predictions, fewer incompetent behaviors were recorded in the formal log than in informal notes for White male trainees. Firing decisions generally mimicked these patterns and in Study 3 were partially mediated by the accessibility of incompetent behaviors.

Persuasive analogies consist of linguistic cues that invite audiences to represent a problem in terms of an analog and to make choices compatible with this manipulated representation. The authors explore how the frequency of linguistic cues moderates analogical bias in choice behavior. Participants read versions of a managerial decision scenario differing in the number of sports (e.g., game plan) or family (e.g., parent company) idioms used to describe situational attributes and then chose between analogically consistent and inconsistent response options. Analogies consisting of an intermediate number of cues elicited higher rates of analogically consistent responding than those of higher and lower cue frequency. When explaining their responses, participants referred to the sports or family analogies most often to rationalize rejecting the analogically consistent response option after reading high cue frequency versions. These findings indicate that there are lower and upper boundaries to a persuasive analogy's optimal cue frequency. Keywords: analogy, idioms, decision making, choice

Four studies tested a prediction derived from the shifting-standards model (Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991) regarding the role stereotypes play in judgments of individual group members. Previous research has documented that stereotyping effects are stronger on objective than on subjective response scales, and the present studies found that these effects were intensified when participants were under heavy cognitive load. Stereotyping effects increased on objective judgment scales, but decreased on subjective scales. The latter is a paradoxical effect: By relying on stereotypes, one may increasingly use them as within-category comparative standards, which leads to the apparent reduction of stereotyping effects.

Using structural equation modeling, the authors tested theoretical predictions concerning the effects of perceived discrimination against one's gender on psychological well-being in women and men. Results were highly supportive of the Rejection-Identification Model, with perceptions of discrimination harming psychological well-being among women but not among men. The results also support the Rejection-Identification Model's prediction that women partially cope with the negative well-being consequences of perceived discrimination by increasing identification with women as a group. In contrast, perceived discrimination was unrelated to group identification among men. The authors found no support for the hypothesis that perceptions of discrimination have self-protective properties among the disadvantaged. Results are consistent with the contention that the differential effects of perceived discrimination among women and men are due to differences in the groups' relative positions within the social structure.

The authors tested the shifting standards model (M. Biernat, M. Manis, & T. E. Nelson, 1991) as it applies to sex- and race-based stereotyping of self and others in the military. U.S. Army officers attending a leadership training course made judgments of their own and their groupmates' leadership competence at 3 time points over a 9-week period. We examined the effects of officer sex and race on both subjective (rating) and objective/common-rule (ranking/Q-sort) evaluations. Stereotyping generally increased with time, and in accordance with the shifting standards model, pro-male judgment bias was more evident in rankings than in ratings, particularly for White targets. Self-judgments were also affected by sex-based shifting standards, particularly in workgroups containing a single ('solo') woman. Differential standard use on the basis of race was less apparent, a finding attributed to the Army's explicit invocation against the use of differential race-based standards.

Subjective labels are used to communicate preferences and impressions. The meaning of a subjective impression can be interpreted, only if the standard used by the evaluator is known. Stereotypes alter the standard employed in the judgment process. The shifting standards model has mainly been concerned with comparing judgements of stereotyped groups with those made on objective scales. An extension of the prior shifting standards work is provided, with examination of whether identical words are decoded according to stereotypic standards.

Judgments of self and referent others tend to be positively related, as evident in the false consensus effect, but others may also be contrasted from the self, as noted in the false uniqueness literature. In 3 studies that examined the domains of attitudes and traits, evidence of both assimilative and contrastive associations between self- and other-judgments were noted, depending on the form of judgment (objective vs. subjective) and the relevant judgment scale anchor (self vs. others). When self-judgments were made first, objective appraisals of reference groups were contrasted from subjective self-appraisals (after controlling for individual differences in participants' behavioral reports). When judgments of others were made first, objective self-ratings were contrasted from subjective other-judgments. Implications for the false consensus literature and the shifting standards model (M. Biernat, M. Manis, & T. E. Nelson, 1991) are discussed.

Across 3 small studies, 80 female undergraduates were confronted with the dilemma of deciding whom - themselves or another research participant - to assign to a positive consequences task, leaving the other to do a dull, boring task. In Study 1, where morality was not mentioned, 16 of 20 assigned themselves to the positive consequences task, even though in retrospect only I said this was moral. In Studies 2 and 3, a moral strategy was suggested: either flipping a coin or accepting task assignment by the experimenter. In Study 2, 10 of 20 participants flipped a coin, but of these, 9 assigned themselves the positive consequences task. In Study 3, participants were significantly more likely to accept the experimenter's assignment when it gave them the positive consequences task. Overall, results suggested motivation to appear moral yet still benefit oneself. Such motivation is called moral hypocrisy.

Stereotypes may influence judgment via assimilation, such that individual group members are evaluated consistently with stereotypes, or via contrast, such that targets are displaced from the overall group expectation. Two models of judgment - the shifting standards model and status characteristics theory - provide some insight into predicting and interpreting these apparently contradictory effects. In 2 studies involving a simulated applicant-evaluation setting, we predicted and found that participants set lower minimum-competency standards, but higher ability standards, for female than for male and for Black than for White applicants. Thus, although it may be easier for low- than high-status group members to meet (low) standards, these same people must work harder to prove that their performance is ability based.