Gender and the attributions of chief executive responsibility for successful or unsuccessful organizational outcomes

This study addresses the effects of gender upon the attributions of responsibility for success and failure by chief executives in an organizational setting. Prior laboratory studies verify that some sex-related differences exist, although their importance and causes have been subject to controversy. In general, gender seems to make a difference in two respects. Men tend to make stronger attributions to their own ability than women and men are less likely than women to attribute their own performance to luck. In short, women are more likely to derogate their own efforts than are men. In this study no major gender-related differences were found in the patterns of attribution of the causes given for success or failure. These results indicate that if a general model of gender-related attributional differences is to be developed, additional studies from natural settings are needed.     

The relationship of gender and sex-role orientation to vocational undecidedness

This investigation examined the effects of gender and sex-role identity on vocational indecision and its multiple subtypes. Data were collected on 191 undergraduate students, and the results of the analyses revealed that sex-role orientation was strongly related to subjects' levels of vocational undecidedness. Nontraditionally sex-typed subjects scored at significantly higher levels on all indecision indices than did traditionally sex-typed subjects. However, no gender-related differences were found among the various indecision indices. Implications for future research are discussed.     

The Relationship of Informational Attributions to Affective Response to Success and Failure

Abstract

This study assessed the relationship of informational attributions—perceived characteristics of the self and the task situation—to postperformance affect. College students performed an anagram task and rated causal and informational attributions for their outcomes, the causal dimensions for the perceived causes of their outcomes, and their affective response to their outcomes. The valence of the outcome—success or failure—was the best predictor of affect, and both causal attributions and causal dimensions accounted for substantial portions of the affect variance. Informational attributions accounted for a significant proportion of the affect variance beyond that attributable to the other factors. Implications of these results for the attributional theory of emotion are discussed.     

Gender Differences in Attributions and Emotions in Helping Contexts

Gender differences in the provision and receipt of emotional support may result from differences in the formation of responsibility and effort attributions in support-seeking interactions. Participants (N = 1,211, primarily middle-class, European American college students) read support-seeking scenarios that varied in support-seeker gender, responsibility for the problem, and effort to resolve the problem, as well as the problem itself, and completed measures of responsibility, effort attributions, and emotions (anger, sympathy). Results indicated qualified and subtle gender differences in attributions, emotions, and attribution--emotion associations, which are broadly consistent with the application of gendered moral orientations and instrumentality norms. These findings are discussed with respect to theorizing about gender differences in attribution processes and emotional support behavior.     

Gender and mathematics anxiety: The role of math-related experiences and opinions

Abstract

Research has indicated that women may be particularly prone to experiencing mathematics anxiety and, to account for this, the sex-role socialization hypothesis posits that women are more math anxious because they have had less experience with mathematics and have more negative opinions regarding mathematics. In contrast, the math experiences hypothesis suggests that math anxiety is not truly a gender-related phenomenon, but rather is due to poor mathematical preparation, regardless of gender. The present study pitted the “sex-role” hypothesis against the “math experience” hypothesis in an examination of the relation between gender and math anxiety. One hundred and seventy-one university students completed a measure of math anxiety and a series of questions regarding their math marks, opinions, and experiences throughout their educational history. The findings clearly supported the math experience hypothesis of math anxiety, for differences in math marks, opinions, and experiences were found between non-math-anxious, moderately math-anxious, and highly math-anxious students. The few gender differences that were found indicated that the female students frequently reported higher math marks than those reported by male students. We suggest that the relation between gender and mathematics anxiety may be accounted for by gender-linked reporting biases. The limitations of the study are addressed and suggestions for future research are made.     

Causal attributions, self-monitoring, and gender differences among four virginity status groups

Sexual choices and behavior involve complex cognitive and affective processes. Attribution theory remains a prominent social-cognitive model that may help explain such phenomena. In the present study, 198 undergraduates, separated by self-reported virginity status, completed Russell's Causal Dimension Scale and Snyder's Self-Monitoring Scale. The purpose was to determine whether different virginity status groups make different causal attributions about virginity and sexual choices, whether self-monitoring influences this attribution process, and whether males and females differ in this regard. Results indicated a variety of statistically significant virginity status and gender differences in causal attributions. Self-monitoring, however, was not a significant covariate. Possible explanations for these results, and their implications, are discussed.     

Relationship between sex-role attitudes and personality traits and the revised sex-role behavior scale

Two hundred college men and women completed self-report measures of sex-role traits (Personal Attributes Questionnaire), attitudes (Attitudes Toward Women Scale), and behavior (Sex-Role Behavior Scale). Intercorrelations among the three measures were examined to test two competing theoretical perspectives which dominate sex-role research today. The social learning point-of-view of Janet Spence and her colleagues asserts a general independence of sex-role personality traits, attitudes, and behaviors. The cognitive-developmental theory of Sandra Bem asserts that sex-role phenomena are fairly closely interrelated, at least for sex-typed individuals whose gender schemas cause them to adhere closely to traditional sex-role norms in their self-concepts and behavior. Findings of moderate relationships between masculine, feminine, and sex-specific personality traits, and the corresponding interest/behavior scales of the Sex-Role Behavior Scale, and between sex-role attitudes and behaviors lend partial support to both perspectives.     

Preschoolers' inferences about gender and emotion: The mediation of emotionality stereotypes

This study examined childrens' stereotypes about sex differences in emotionality. Thirty preschoolers were presented with hypothetical emotional situations and asked to indicate the gender of the expressor and reasons for their choice. Although fear was consistently associated with females, gender attribution was situation specific for anger and happiness. Examination of preschoolers' explanations for gender attributions revealed that females made greater use of sex-role and imagery categories than did males. Furthermore, a significant age difference in the use of categorical and noncategorical responses was reported, with younger children making a greater number of noncategorical explanations. Children who used imagery to mediate gender choice relied primarily on hair color and length as gender-specific cues.     

The Effects of Gender and Measurement Strategy on Causal Attributions for Infertility

Investigators of causal attributions for threatening events have typically studied either male or female samples and have interchangeably used two methods of assessing attributions. To examine the effect of gender and measurement strategy on causal attributions, we interviewed 31 men and 33 women with impaired fertility. Causal attributions were measured using open-ended questions, as well as by asking participants to rate the influence of five specific causes. The results of a multitrait-multimethod matrix revealed only modest convergence between measurement methods. As predicted, both method and gender influenced causal attributions. Women were more likely to attribute the infertility to their behavior. Causal attributions were related to psychological symptoms, but differentially depending on how attributions were measured.     

Effects of Question-Wording Style and Research Context on Attributions for Success and Failure

Although a substantial body of research exists concerning the patterns of causal attributions that are made to explain achievement outcomes, relatively little attention has been paid to the effects that measurement techniques have on the attributions they elicit. Two methodological factors—question-wording style and research context—were hypothesized to affect the results of attribution studies. Participants made informational (e.g., "How hard did you try?") and causal (e.g., "To what extent was effort a cause of your outcome?") attributions to outcomes in either an experimental (anagram-task) or natural (classroom-examination) research context. Significant outcome effects were found for (a) informational but not causal attributions to ability and to the task and for (b) attributions to ability in the natural but not in the experimental context. The implications of these findings for attribution theory and research are discussed.     

Gender differences in personality: Biological and/or psychological?

The results of three empirical studies are reported in which the hypothesis is tested that differences in personality variables between the morphophenotype sexes can be explained by psychological sex-role orientation variables. Furthermore, it was expected that normative sex-role orientations (measured with the SRO-S and the AWS-S Scales) and gender-related self-concepts (femininity, masculinity, and androgyny measured with a modified BSRI) explain more variance in personality variables than morphophenotype sex. Besides these sex-role orientation variables, test and questionnaire data on verbal fluency, spatial reasoning, self-concept, anxiety, and aggressiveness were obtained in Study I from 50 young adults and their same-sex parents; in Study II, data on verbal fluency, spatial reasoning, self-concept, anxiety, and neuroticism were obtained from 120 university students; and in Study III, data on anxiety, locus of control, and Machiavellianism were obtained from 226 university students. The results confirm both hypotheses for the two aspects of intelligence studied, domain-specific self-concepts, different aspects of anxiety and aggressiveness, neuroticism, powerful others' externality in locus of control, and Machiavellianism. For all these personality variables the effect sizes of the psychological gender variables were larger than those of morphophenotype sex and reached medium to large values.     

Exploring attributions in natural settings: Gender and self-esteem effects

Two studies investigated the attributions of undergraduates for the outcomes of satisfying and dissatisfying achievement events that occurred naturally over the course of a 3-week period. In both studies, women with low performance self-esteem gave less ego-enhancing attributions than high self-esteem women, high self-esteem men, or low self-esteem men. Also, in Study 2 high self-esteem subjects attributed greater stability to causes of satisfying events than to causes of dissatisfying events, whereas low self-esteem subjects gave both types of events equivalent stability ratings. Both studies provide evidence of consistent individual differences in attributional style across occasions and situations. The gender differences were interpreted in the context of sex-role socialization factors and Anderson and Slusher's (1986) two-stage model of the attribution process.     

Gender differences in causal attributions by college students of performance on course examinations

Gender differences in causal attributions and emotions for imagined success and failure on examinations were investigated. Males made stronger ability attributions for success than females, whereas females emphasized the importance of studying and paying attention. Males more than females attributed failure to a lack of studying and low interest, but females were more likely than males to blame an F on a lack of ability. Females experienced stronger emotions than did males; they felt happier than males did after success but felt more like a failure than did males after imagining receiving an F on an examination. Some of the gender differences in causal attributions, especially for ability attributions, depended on the gender-type of the subject matter of the examinations. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Gender differences in causal attributions by college students of performance on course examinations

Gender differences in causal attributions and emotions for imagined success and failure on examinations were investigated. Males made stronger ability attributions for success than females, whereas females emphasized the importance of studying and paying attention. Males more than females attributed failure to a lack of studying and low interest, but females were more likely than males to blame an F on a lack of ability. Females experienced stronger emotions than did males; they felt happier than males did after success but felt more like a failure than did males after imagining receiving an F on an examination. Some of the gender differences in causal attributions, especially for ability attributions, depended on the gender-type of the subject matter of the examinations. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Attributions About Rape: Effects of Rapist Force, Observer Sex and Sex Role Attitudes

The present study investigated subjects' perceptions of a hypothetical rape situation as a function of the amount of force used in the rape, sex of subject, and subjects' attitudes toward feminism. Two hundred thirty-two subjects (118 females, 114 males) were randomly assigned by sex to one of three force conditions. Consistent with expectation, subjects expressed greater certainty that a rape had actually occurred with increased force on the part of the assailant ( p <.001). A second hypothesis received partial support: Increasing force led to stronger attributions of rape on the part of traditional women, whereas liberal women tended to see the incident as rape at all force levels. A similar relationship did not emerge for men, however. As predicted, profeminist subjects implicated societal factors as causal in rape to a greater extent than did nonfeminists. Contrary to prediction, however, pro- and nonfeminists were not found to differ from each other in the degree of blame attributed to either the victim or the assailant. The findings support the general notion that one's gender and sex-role attitudes as well as the degree of force used by a rape assailant affect one's evaluation of this situation and the manner in which one attributes cause. Implications for rape prevention and victim reaction are discussed.     

Relationship of therapists' sex, sex-role, and age to awareness of the salience of gender-related concepts in analogue research: a preliminary finding regarding distribution of therapists by sex-role

In response to speculation that awareness of feminist concerns had made patient analogue studies transparent, the present study was done to estimate the extent and correlates of therapists' awareness of the gender-related characteristics of such a sex-role questionnaire. A national sample of 131 male and 120 female therapists showed that male therapists tend to be sex-typed and female therapists are predominantly androgynous. No significant relationship obtained between the therapists' sex-role and their awareness that this experiment involved gender. The relationship between sex of therapist and awareness only approached significance. Younger therapists tended to be more aware than older ones.     

Attributions of Responsibility in Cases of Sexual Harassment: The Person and the Situation1

When observers learn about a case of sexual harassment, it is common for them to assign responsibility to the victim and perpetrator. However, attributions of responsibility are complex judgments often based on variables beyond the case's details (e.g., attitudes). The present study examined how victim response, victim and perpetrator gender, and participant gender and gender‐role attitudes influenced participants' attributions. Victim and perpetrator responsibility were measured before and after participants knew the victim's reaction in order to examine whether new information would alter participants' attributions. Consistent with previous research, gender differences were found for attributions and attitudes. Victim and perpetrator gender did not affect attributions. However, biases appeared in open‐ended responses. Finally, only females made distinctions of responsibility across victim reaction condition.