The Effects of Actual Behavior vs. Mere Labelling in Attribution of Sex Differences

A recurrent problem in interpreting research showing differential reactions to the sexes is that such results may reflect real behavior differences among those observed or differential expectations of those observing. This study used a methodology which allowed these two competing explanations to be tested by assessing whether subjects' ratings of taped interactants whose gender was ambiguous would be determined mainly by what gender the subjects thought the interactants were or by the interactants' behavior. The results showed that the causes of the sex differences in assessments differed depending on what type of assessment was being made. Specifically, behavior differences and not observers' expectations about such differences largely determined observers' ratings of specific attributes of the interactants, but observers' expectations and not behavior differences determined observers' general ratings of masculinity/femininity.     

Cross-cultural differences in distributive justice: a comparison of Turkey and the U.S

When allocators make decisions about distributing resources, they face a dilemma if the expectations for consequences that will flow from particular choices are incongruent with each other. For example, a certain allocation choice might be expected to make an allocator appear warm and likable but unfair. Previous research has found that culture can shape these perceptions and, thus, their congruence or incongruence. The present study further investigated these ideas. Differences between Turkish and U.S. students' perceptions of allocators who distributed resources on the basis of merit vs. need were investigated. Results revealed an allocation dilemma among the U.S. but not among the Turkish students. Specifically, the U.S. students perceived greater incongruence among allocation consequences for both merit and need choices than did the students from Turkey for whom perceptions of allocator's fairness were more aligned with perceptions of allocator's warmth.     

Factors Affecting Health-Care Allocation Decisions: A Case of Aversive Racism?

A distributive justice framework is used to examine how individuals make judgments about what is fair when making different types of health-care allocation decisions. The effects of 4 patient characteristics are assessed: (a) prognosis, (b) degree of responsibility for illness, (c) employment status, and (d) race. Results reveal that when the patient was defined as being more versus less responsible for his illness, respondents gave him a significantly lower priority score for obtaining health-care services, and they felt that he should be more responsible for paying for or soliciting funds to cover the costs of his health needs. Respondents also reacted with more negative emotion to the responsible patient and described him in more negative trait terms. Although patient's race produced no main effects, race did interact with employment status on several key variables. When the patient was described as being unemployed, the White patient compared to the Black patient was given a higher health-care priority score, he was resented less, and respondents were more willing to contribute money to pay for his health-care costs; but when the patient was described as being employed, the direction of differences between the races on these variables was reversed.     

ACCESS DECISIONS BY PERSONNEL DIRECTORS: SUBTLE FORMS OF SEX BIAS IN HIRING

Midwestern personnel and management association members rated bogus job applications which had identical background qualifications but varied by sex of applicant, sex-role related attributes of applicant, and degree of fit of applicant credentials to job demands. The applicants were rated on their qualifications and likelihood of being considered for the position, expected performance, and expected success in the job. A significant triple interaction was found for the variable that measured the likelihood of the applicant being considered for the position (i.e., access to the position). Higher access ratings were given to the sex–stereotypical applicant when the applicant's credentials matched job demands. When the applicant's credentials did not fit the job demands, raters tended to favor non–stereotypical applicants. Practical and research implications are discussed.