What I think you think of me: women's reactions to being viewed as beneficiaries of preferential selection

Undergraduate women (N = 150) participated in 2 experimental studies designed to examine the effects of knowing that another believed they were beneficiaries of preferential selection. Results indicated that participants' awareness that the other viewed them as having been selected on the basis of gender rather than merit (a) prompted inferences that the other held negative expectations of their competence (Studies 1 and 2); (b) produced timid, performance-limiting task decisions as well as negative self-regard when they were uncertain about their task ability level (Studies 1 and 2): and (c) produced ambitious, performance-maximizing task decisions when they knew themselves to be high in task ability and also were motivated to make a good impression (Study 2). In addition, in both studies negative affect resulted from the participants' knowledge that the other viewed them as having been preferentially selected.     

Attributional Ambiguity of Affirmative Action

We propose that affirmative action policies that are perceived to give preference to individuals solely or primarily on the basis of their group membership create attributional ambiguity about the personal deserving of individuals affected by these procedures. This ambiguity about the extent to which outcomes are deserved is hypothesized to be self-protective for people who are denied a position, but to have detrimental consequences among beneficiaries, especially if they are members of groups whose competence is doubted (either by themselves or others). Selection procedures that are perceived to be based both on individual merit and group membership, in contrast, are hypothesized to reduce attributional ambiguity about deserving and thus attenuate the effects of group-based preferential selection procedures on those who are benefited and bypassed by these procedures. An experiment was conducted to test these hypotheses. Men and women were randomly selected or rejected for a leadership role under one of three procedures: outcomes based (a) solely on sex, (b) solely on merit, or (c) on both sex and merit. Results provided partial support for our hypotheses.     

Moderating Effects of Goal Orientation on the Negative Consequences of Gender-Based Preferential Selection

Two studies examined the moderating effect of situationally induced goal orientation on the negative effects of gender-based preferential selection for women and the extent to which ability perceptions mediate the impact of selection method. Study 1 found that under a performance orientation women selected on the basis of gender evaluated their performance less favorably and reported less desire to remain in the task than women selected on the basis of merit. Under a learning orientation women's responses were not affected by selection method. Study 2 generalized this effect to task performance, examining both males and females. As hypothesized, men did not experience negative effects of preferential selection. Negative effects of preferential selection on performance for women were found only under a performance orientation. Both studies suggested that ability perceptions do not fully mediate the effects of preferential selection.     

Self-verification and contextualized self-views

Whereas most self-verification research has focused on people's desire to verify their global self-conceptions, the present studies examined self-verification with regard to contextualized selfviews-views of the self in particular situations and relationships. It was hypothesized that individuals whose core self-conceptions include contextualized self-views should seek to verify these self-views. In Study 1, the more individuals defined the self in dialectical terms, the more their judgments were biased in favor of verifying over nonverifying feedback about a negative, situation-specific self-view. In Study 2, consistent with research on gender differences in the importance of relationships to the self-concept, women but not men showed a similar bias toward feedback about a negative, relationship-specific self-view, a pattern not seen for global self-views. Together, the results support the notion that self-verification occurs for core self-conceptions, whatever form(s) they may take. Individual differences in self-verification and the nature of selfhood and authenticity are discussed.     

A New Perspective on Preferential Treatment: The Role of Ambiguity and Self-Efficacy

Knowledge of being selected preferentially has been shown to have negative effects. This study examined how changing the operationalization of preferential treatment to allow for perceptions of ambiguity in the nature of the selection decision may lead to changes in research conclusions. Eighty-four female undergraduates were led to believe they were selected to perform a mathematical task based on their merit, direct preferential treatment, or a more ambiguous or indirect preferential treatment. Results indicated that participants' self-efficacy levels affected their interpretations of the manipulation and performance. Implications for the study of preferential treatment are discussed.     

SELF-VERIFICATION AND DRUG ABUSERS:

Abstract— The work of Swann and his colleagues suggests that a desire for self- verification is a ubiquitous human motive, as important as the desire for positive evaluations When the self-view is negative, the reinforcement value of self-verification can lead individuals to maintain lifestyles and seek out other individuals Who will maintain the negative self-view. Trying to change negative self-views by simple verbal invalidation is not often successful. The reinforcing qualities of self-verification for most individuals and the apparently aversive qualities of invalidating an individual s self-views have potentially important implications for treatment of drug abusers. This commentary briefly reviews self-verification research and discusses implications of findings for psychotherapy, particularly as they relate to strengthening clinical progress and attachment to therapy and to giving feedback to clients.     

Meta-accuracy about potential relationship partners' models of others

We investigated whether people can determine which partners are best able to confirm their self-views. Results suggest that people are able to determine the valence of a potential romantic partner's model of other (i.e., they are meta-accurate). Previous research indicates that people expect to have their specific negative and positive self-views confirmed by partners whose model of other matches the valence of their self-view. In the present study, participants generally sought feedback that was congruent with a partner's model of other. However, men who held positive self-views were not meta-accurate; rather, they sought positive or negative feedback from partners regardless of the valence of the partner's model of other. These gender differences are discussed in terms of differential socialization patterns. Results suggest that people may choose relationship partners who are able to confirm their self-views.     

Appearance feedback in intimate relationships: The role of self-verification and self-enhancement

To better understand how body image operates within the context of intimate relationships, we investigated women's responses to appearance feedback from an intimate partner. Participants (N = 192) imagined receiving feedback from their partner that was either consistent with their own appearance self-view (i.e., self-verifying), more positive (i.e., self-enhancing), or less positive (i.e., devaluing), and then provided their affective and cognitive reactions. As expected, women's perceptions of their own appearance moderated their reactions. Women with more negative self-views felt happier with enhancing feedback, but thought that it meant their partner understood them less well. They also felt less happy when they received verifying feedback, but felt more understood by their partners. Thus, women with body image dissatisfaction may find themselves stuck in the “cognitive-affective crossfire” reacting ambivalently whether their partner enhances their appearance or confirms their negative self-views. Further examination of partners’ actual feedback is needed.     

The Effect of Information Frame and Informant Gender on Judgements of Merit versus Gender-Based Employment Selection

This study investigated the effect of information frame and informant gender on people's views on merit versus gender-based selection. Results showed that people in general support merit selection and oppose preferential selection. However, the negative reaction to gender-based selection could be attenuated when (1) female informants described the advantages of gender-based selection to female respondents, and (2) male informants argued the same case to male respondents. In addition, the provision of justification further exacerbated perceptions of unfairness of gender-based selection.     

Seeking self-evaluative feedback: the interactive role of global self-esteem and specific self-views

People who verify a negative self-view expose themselves to criticism and rejection. Because people with low global self-esteem are hurt more by negative feedback than are people with high global self-esteem, the authors predicted that they would be less apt to verify a negative self-view in a more specific domain. Three investigations found support for this hypothesis. In all 3 investigations, high self-esteem participants sought (or tended to seek) self-verifying feedback, even if it was negative, but low self-esteem participants sought (or tended to seek) positive feedback, even if it was nonself-verifying. These findings show that low self-esteem people are especially concerned with self-protection and that global self-esteem and specific self-views interact to guide people's responses to self-evaluative feedback.     

Assuming preferential selection when the admissions policy is unknown: the effects of gender rarity

One hundred thirty-five undergraduates indicated the degree to which they believed gender played a role in the selection of an applicant for a graduate degree program. Both the gender composition of the cohort and the selection policy (explicitly merit-based, explicitly affirmative action, or ambiguous) were varied. Results indicated that preferential selection on the basis of gender was assumed when women were solos and explicit information about the selection policy was not provided and that these assumptions were as strong as when an affirmative action policy was explicitly stated. This did not occur when the female selectee was not a solo or when a male selectee was a solo. Evaluations of qualifications and prediction of success paralleled the preferential selection assumptions.     

‘Merit’, ‘Preferential’or ‘Diversity-Based’Selection: Effect of Information Frame and Informant Gender on the Public's Views on Preferential Treatment in Selection

The study examined (1) the public's reactions to the philosophical justifications for merit vs. preferential selection, and (2) the effect of information frame (i.e. ‘merit’, ‘preferential’and ‘diversity’frames) and informant gender on people's views on preferential selection. Results show that in general the public supported merit selection and opposed the preferential practice and that their reactions to the justifications for a selection practice determined the level of support for (or opposition to) that practice. In addition, people's support for merit selection was weakened under the preferential-frame-female-informant condition; their opposition to preferential selection was also reduced when a male informant advocated the advantages of the preferential practice by using the term diversity-based selection instead of preferential selection. Results were discussed in the context of the social influence literature.     

Footsteps I would like to follow? How gender quotas affect the acceptance of women leaders as role models and inspirations for leadership

This research examines how the method of selecting women leaders affects other women's leadership interest. The results of three experiments (N = 1,015) indicated that only when women leaders were selected due to merit, not quota-based policies, did they boost female participants’ interest in a leadership position. These reactions were mediated by perceptions of the woman leader's deservingness of her position (Studies 1–3) and consequent acceptance as a role model (Studies 2 and 3). Accordingly, success information validating quota-based selected leaders’ competence provided a boost in leadership interest equal to that of merit-based selected leaders (Study 2). For male participants, quota but not merit-based selected women leaders lowered interest in leadership due to their pessimistic assessment of the probability of being selected (Study 1). These results suggest that a wise implementation of quota regulations includes validating women's competence so they are perceived as deserving of their leader roles and can thus serve as inspiring role models.     

Selection based on merit versus demography: implications across race and gender lines

In a replication and extension of the study by M. E. Heilman, M. C. Simon, and D. P. Repper (1987), 201 undergraduates participated in a simulation in which they experienced differing selection procedures and outcome feedback. Selection procedures did not have the deleterious effects on women that were found previously. Instead, race interacted with gender to moderate this relationship, and outcome played a significant role in participant self-evaluations. Black participants rated their leadership ability highest when both chosen preferentially and given negative outcome feedback, apparently because of a desire to maintain positive self-esteem. The latter explanation was supported in a follow-up study in which undergraduates (n = 80) worked in groups and received negative outcome feedback from either a racially similar or racially different experimenter. Theoretical and practical implications relating to diversity and self-appraisal management are discussed.     

Effects of Scope of Justice,Informant Ethnicity,and Information Frame on Attitudes towards Ethnicity-based Selection

The study ascertained whether attitudes towards ethnicity-based employment selection would be affected by three variables: scope of justice, information frame, and informant ethnicity. Using a scenario approach, results showed that (1) European New Zealanders with greater scope of justice regarding Maori people were less opposed to an employment practice that involves granting preferential treatment to Maori candidates. (2) The frame of information about ethnicity-based selection (i.e. preferential selection vs. diversity-based selection) and informant ethnicity interacted with scope of justice in exerting a significant influence on respondents' views on ethnicity-based selection. Furthermore, individuals' reactions to moral philosophers' justifications for merit or ethnicity-based selection determined their overall attitudes towards each selection practice.     

Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth? Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification

Three studies asked why people sometimes seek positive feedback (self-enhance) and sometimes seek subjectively accurate feedback (self-verify). Consistent with self-enhancement theory, people with low self-esteem as well as those with high self-esteem indicated that they preferred feedback pertaining to their positive rather than negative self-views. Consistent with self-verification theory, the very people who sought favorable feedback pertaining to their positive self-conceptions sought unfavorable feedback pertaining to their negative self-views, regardless of their level of global self-esteem. Apparently, although all people prefer to seek feedback regarding their positive self-views, when they seek feedback regarding their negative self-views, they seek unfavorable feedback. Whether people self-enhance or self-verify thus seems to be determined by the positivity of the relevant self-conceptions rather than their level of self-esteem or the type of person they are.     

From self-conceptions to self-worth: on the sources and structure of global self-esteem

Three factors were identified that uniquely contribute to people's global self-esteem: (a) people's tendencies to experience positive and negative affective states, (b) people's specific self-views (i.e., their conceptions of their strengths and weaknesses), and (c) the way people frame their self-views. Framing factors included the relative certainty and importance of people's positive versus negative self-views and the discrepancy between people's actual and ideal self-views. The contribution of importance to people's self-esteem, however, was qualified in 2 ways. First, importance contributed only to the self-esteem of those who perceived that they had relatively few talents. Second, individuals who saw their positive self-views as important were especially likely to be high in self-esteem when they were also highly certain of these positive self-views. The theoretical and therapeutic implications of these findings are discussed.     

On the benefits of misery: self-serving biases in the depressive self-concept

Two survey studies suggested that depressed people react to their acute distress by engaging in self-serving biases and striving to develop positive self-views. Study 1 revealed that whereas most of the specific self-views of depressed persons were relatively negative, their best (most favorable) self-views were just as favorable as the best self-views of nondepressed persons. Moreover, depressed participants reported that they were highly confident of their best self-views and considered these beliefs extremely important. Analyses equating depressed and nondepressed persons for global self-esteem provided even stronger evidence of self-serving biases among the depressed. Specifically, such analyses revealed that depressed persons' best self-views were even more positive than the best self-views of the nondepressed. A 2nd study replicated these effects and provided tentative evidence that downward comparison processes play a role in the development of depressed persons' positive self-views. The theoretical and therapeutic implications of these findings are discussed.     

Wanted: Self-doubting employees—Managers scoring positively on impostorism favor insecure employees in task delegation

Impostorism denotes individuals who are successful in their jobs but who doubt their abilities relative to the demands of their jobs. This study analyzes to what extent impostorism affects leadership behavior of these individuals. A core component of leadership is task delegation, implying the empowerment of employees to take responsibility for more or less challenging projects. In a vignette study, N = 190 managers assigned both routine and challenging tasks to employees who allegedly possessed varying levels of self-confidence regarding their job-related abilities. Managers holding negative self-views of their own abilities and perceiving themselves as impostors in their jobs, preferred to delegate both challenging and routine tasks to employees whose self-views resembled those of the managers. This study clearly shows that managers' self-beliefs bias their task delegation decisions.     

Allure of negative feedback: self-verification strivings among depressed persons.

We propose that people with negative self-views are rejected because they gravitate to partners who view them unfavorably. In relation to nondepressed college students (n = 28), depressives (n = 13) preferred interaction partners who evaluated them unfavorably (Study 1). Similarly, in relation to nondepressives (n = 106), depressives (n = 10) preferred friends or dating partners who evaluated them unfavorably (Study 2). Dysphorics (n = 6) were more inclined to seek unfavorable feedback from their roommates than were nondepressives (n = 16); feedback-seeking activities of dysphorics were also associated with later rejection (Study 3). Finally, people with negative self-views (n = 37) preferentially solicited unfavorable feedback, although receiving such feedback made them unhappy, in comparison with people with positive self-views (n = 42; Study 4). It seems a desire for self-verification compels people with negative self-views to seek unfavorable appraisals.