Sex differences in attribution for occupational success

A study was conducted to both test and extend Deaux's (Sex: A perspective on the attribution process. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd, (Eds.), New directions in attribution research, Volume 1. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976) expectancy model of sex-linked differences in attribution for success. Specifically, it was hypothesized that female occupational subjects would attribute success more to the unstable causes of effort and luck, as well as the stable internal cause of interpersonal skill, while male occupational subjects would make higher attributions to the stable causes of ability and task ease. This hypothesis was supported for the causes of effort, luck, and task ease. Additionally, a comparison between sex differences in attribution occurring within a nonpersonal vs. personal frame of reference showed three of the expected sex differences in attribution to be stronger in the latter condition. Moreover, it was shown that this difference was largely accounted for by changes in females' rather than males' attributions. A final hypothesis, namely, that males would perceive themselves as more successful in their occupations than females, was not confirmed.     

Crossed aphasia: analysis of four cases

Data from the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago was used to contrast a sample of 358 aphasics with data from a Boston aphasia and aging study (L. Obler, M. Albert, H. Goodglass, and F. Benson, Brain and Language, 6, 318–322, 1978). Unlike the females, Chicago males showed remarkable similarity to the Boston male sample for the Broca, Wernicke, and Global groups with ratios of approximately four Broca's to every two Wernicke's and Global aphasics. Similar to the Boston Sample, Wernicke's aphasics were 11.6 years older (p < .001) than Broca's aphasics.