Prejudice against women: Who, when, and why?

Sex Roles, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1981

Prejudice Against Women: Who, When, and Why? 1

Colleen Ward University o f Durham 2

Three experiments were undertaken to comment upon the nature of devaluation of women, in general, and, more specifically, to examine the influence of sex and status o f the assessor on the differential appraisals of males and females. Utilizing the Goldberg design in separate studies, males and females were asked to read and evaluate a psychological article, half allegedly male authored and half female authored. While there was no tendency for "'female" works to be appraised less favorably on quality (style, content, persuasiveness, professionalism, and profundity), there was a marked tendency for males to denigrate the female author per se (status and competence in the field). This was not apparent in women. In a third study, art students and university students cr#ically appraised a modern painting. No obvious devaluation of women was apparent by university students, but art students tended to less favorably appraise works attributed to females. These latter results suggest that the devaluation may be induced by exploitative advantage rather than covert influences o f stereotypes.

Goldberg (1968) has argued that traditional sex-role stereotypes subtly induce differential evaluation of the sexes, in general, and denigration of women, in particular, in areas of professional expertise. His contention receives empirical support from the presentation of academic articles to college women for critical evaluation. In this experiment, the articles were, in fact, identical, but half were allegedly male authored and half female authored. Goldberg found that works attributed to women were

'This paper was presented in a slightly altered form at the British Psychological Society, Social Psychology Division, Annual Conference, Durham, September 1977.

ZThe author is currently at School of Comparative Social Science, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Penang, Malaysia.

163

0360-0025/81/0200-0163503.00/0 © 1981 Plenum Publishing Corporation

164 Ward

consistently devalued in both traditionally masculine areas, such as law and city planning, and traditionally feminine endeavors, such as dietetics and primary education; he maintains that this constitutes prejudice, exemplifies perceptual distortion, and reflects an indiscriminant tendency to devalue women.

More recently Dorros and Follett (1969) have obtained the same anti-female bias with male subjects, and the Goldberg findings have been replicated with both sexes by Etaugh and Rose (1975), Etaugh and Sanders (1974), and Gold (1972). Since then the design has been expanded to include a wide variety of stimulus objects, such as paintings (Pheterson, Keisler, & Goldberg, 1971) and poetry (Starer & Denmark, 1974), as well as appraisals of candidates for academic programs (Deaux & Taynor, 1973) and employment positions (Fidell, 1970). Although most of these studies reflect similar trends, in subsequent attempts the pervasive devaluation of women has diminished, and the influence of multiple factorsPsex appropri- ateness of field, perceived levels of competence, and ambiguity--has become apparent. For example, Mischel (1974) found that male-authored essays were preferred in traditionally masculine spheres, while the reverse was true fo r feminine endeavors. Ward (1979) reported that in keeping with traditional notions of femininity, artistic works of inferior quality were actually preferred when attributed to female artists. Pheterson et al. (1971) found that paintings ascribed to females were only devalued when depicted as contest entries; the same trend was not apparent when works were portrayed as contest winners.

By contrast, more recent attempts have failed to demonstrate even a slight reflection of differential evaluation (Deaux & Farris, 1975; Levenson, Burford, Bonno, & Davis, 1975; Soto & Cole, 1975). In light of these latter studies, Goldberg's notion of a pervasive devaluation of women caused by the subtle influence of sex-role stereotypes appears questionable. In fact, strong evidence suggests that the devaluation of women in areas of professional expertise is highly selective and primarily dependent upon personal characteristics of the assessors. For example, the promale bias demonstrated by university students in the critical appraisal of academic works was not apparent in older relatively uneducated women (Pheterson, 1969). Pheterson suggests that individuals may require a certain amount of familiarity or competence in a field before they become prone to render negative appraisals of stimulus objects; only when this initial confidence is apparent will the denigration of women emerge.

Along the same lines, if devaluation of women in realms of professional competence constitutes prejudice, as suggested by Goldberg, the depreciation may be reliant upon selective advantage to the assessor rather than exclusively induced by subtle stereotypic norms. Specific advantages are readily apparent and prejudice allows for a number of

Prejudice Against Women 165

exploitative gains: economic advantage, social snobbery, and a feeling of moral superiority (Allport, 1954). If unfavorable appraisals o f females did reflect a conscious exploitative effort rather than a subtle predisposition, the bias would be most apparent in those threatened by female competence. Three experiments were designed to examine the pervasiveness of devaluation of women and to investigate the influence of assessors' status on their appraisals of males and females.

E X P E R I M E N T I

Experiment 1 was designed to test if the devaluation o f women in areas of professional competence is a pervasive tendency in men. In keeping with the Goldberg (1968) data, it was hypothesized that allegedly male- authored articles would be more favorably evaluated than female-authored works.

Method

Subjects and Procedure. Fifty-eight male undergraduates participated in the study and were tested in small groups. Ss were told that the experiment concerned the ability of students to make critical evaluations of scholastic works. All Ss received a psychological essay o f approximately 1,500 words. Half of the articles were allegedly male authored and half female authored. Ss were instructed to assign ratings on a scale of 1 (unfavorable) to 10 (favorable) on the following characteristics: style, content, persuasiveness, profundity, professionalism, and the author 's status and competence in the field.

Results

Data were analyzed by t test for each of the items. Analysis indicated no significant differences in the ratings of the articles for style, content, persuasiveness, profundity, and professionalism. However, the female author was rated significantly lower in status (X m = 4.8275, X f = 3.9865, t = -2.0664, sd = 1.7156,p~< .025)and competence ()Trn = 6.3103, )Tf = 5.5862, t = 1.7004, sd = 1.6215, p~< .05).

E X P E R I M E N T II

Experiment II was undertaken to examine differential evaluation of men and women by female university students. Again it was hypothesized

166 Ward

that male-authored works would be more favorably appraised than female-authored articles.

Method

Subjects and Procedure. Thirty-three university women participated in the study, which was initiated approximately three months after the original investigation. The procedure was identical with that of the previous experiment; the same academic article was utilized.

Results

Analysis indicated no significant difference in the appraisals of academic essays. There was tendency, though not significant, for works ascribed to females to be more positively evaluated.

EXPERIMENT III

The previous attempts to establish a pervasive prejudice against women failed, and Experiment III was designed to examine status of assessor in relation to differential appraisals o f males and females. Since devaluation of women because of specific exploitative advantages was expected to occur, the stimulus was changed from an academic essay to an artistic work to augment its relevance to art students and diminish its significance for univesity students. Then, within the context of the Pheterson et al. (1971) design, students from an internationally recognized college of art and a prestigious British university were required to evaluate paintings. Because of their artistic accomplishments, acknowledged status, and the potential threat of talented female artists, both male and female art students were expected to devaluate female competence in artistic endeavors. The same trend was not expected in university students.

Method

Subjects. Ninety-two university students (60 males and 32 females) and 94 art students (50 males and 44 females) participated in the study. Age ranged from 18 to 23 in both samples.

Procedure. Ss were told that the purpose of the experiment was to assess their ability to critically evaluate artistic works. Ss were asked to view and evaluate a painting on a scale of 1 (unfavorable) to 7 (favorable) on the

Prejudice Against Women

Table I. Mean Ratings of Paintings a

Item Artist

Educational Institution

St. Mart ins Durham Art College University

Male 3.63624 3.55028 t~°mp°sitl°nu Female 3.28209 4.15287

Male 3.67393 3.70114 Technique c Female 3.29679 4.50460

Male 3.25066 3.58254 _ - ~ Lxpresslvenessu Female 2.79813 4.17471

Male 3.22024 3.69829 Overall quanty~ Female 2.91241 4.27241

Male 2.73148 3.45446 Personal appeals' Female 2.42380 4.55977

a Scale ranges from 1 (low) to 7 (high). bp <~ .05.

~p ~< .025. ~< .01.

167

following characteristics: composi t ion , use o f color, technique, subject matter , warmth, sensitivity, originality, expressiveness, intensity, vitality, overall quality, artistic appeal, artistic competence , and artistic potential . Sex of the artist was varied. Ss were tested in groups.

Resul ts

Data were analyzed by a 2 × 2 × 2 analysis o f variance (sex o f artist × sex o f subject × educat ional institution) o f unweighted means. No main effects for sex o f artist were apparent for any o f the 14 items. Educat ional institution p roduced a series o f main effects, with art students giving more negative evaluations o f use o f color, technique, subject matter , warmth, sensitivity, originality, expressiveness, vitality, overall evaluat ion, artistic appeal, artistic status, and artistic potential ( p < .001), and sex o f subject p roduced a main effect, with males more positively evaluat ing subject matter (p ~< .025). More interesting, however, was the relatively consistent interaction effect between sex o f artist and educat ional institution. Ar t students were most critical o f female artists, according them more negative evaluations for composi t ion , technique, expressiveness, overall quality, and artistic appeal ( p ~ .001; see Table I). No third-order interact ion effects were evident.

168 Ward

DISCUSSION

Unlike the Goldberg (1968) data, the results reported here do not support the notion of a pervasive devaluation of women in relation to men. Devaluative trends appear to be variable and elicited by selective factors.

Examination of evaluations of academic articles by males reveals no overall bias against female works. Mean ratings of items denoting the quality of scholarship were not significantly different. Differential appraisals did occur in the ratings of the authors' status and competence. In the first instance, devaluation may represent not a prejudice, but a realistic view of the occupational hierarchies. To be specific, women tend to fill the lower status academic positions, and " leaders" in scholarly pursuits are almost always male. It is not totally unwarranted to assume that although a woman may produce sound academic material, her status, in relation to the male's, will be slighted. Ratings of the authors ' competence, however, do reflect a more genuine promale bias, and exemplify a very personalized pre- j u d i c e - t h e denigration of women per se, rather than their academic accomplishments.

Data elicited f rom female students present a different picture. There was no support for a pervasive devaluation of women, either in the appraisals of the article or author. In fact, although the results were not significant, there was a tendency for females to be more positively evaluated than males. It may be that females are less susceptible to the influence of stereotypes and are less prone to devalue women, as some data suggest that men maintain more stereotypic values (Kitay, 1940; Meyer & Sobieszek, 1972). Alternatively, the favorable evaluations of female competence may represent a conscious denial of feminine inferiority and a resulting incre- ment in positive appraisals.

If the devaluation of women is pervasive and strongly influenced by sex-role stereotypes, a uniform promale bias should be apparent in the appraisals of academic works by male and female students; a similar denigration of artistic works ascribed to women by both university and art students would also be expected. Not surprisingly, art students rendered less favorable appraisals of artistic compositions in general, but counter to this notion of pervasiveness of denigration, only they preferred works attributed to male artists. These results suggest that devaluation of women may reflect a conscious, purposeful bias; this interpretation gains support from Allport 's (1954) exploitative advantage theory and Touhey's (1974) work on occupational prestige. The former assumes that economic, political, and status gains may result from deliberate or even unconscious exploitation of minorities. The latter concentrates on the notion of status, which is theoretically diminished with the entry of minority groups into prestigious professions. For example, Touhey found that the hypothetical addition of


women into high-status professions decreases occupational prestige and desirability. In this light, it is not surprising that art students are more critical of female artists; university students, on the other hand, are not threatened by the intrusion of female artists and can afford to render more positive evaluations.

This notion gains further support from studies concerning differential evaluation of males and females in areas of occupational suitability. Prime investigations demonstrating a blatant promale bias originated as field studies. FideU (1970) verified discriminatory practices in hiring for academic positions by sampling departmental chairpersons. Likewise, Rosen and Jerdee (1974) concluded that males are favored in selection, promotion, and career development decisions by interviewing executive managers. In contrast, Soto and Cole (1975) found no bias in personnel selection when students were requested to role play departmental managers; nor did Brief and Wallace (1976), who instructed students to exercise supervisory abilities in the evaluation of library administrators. It seems, then, that discriminatory attitudes toward women are contingent upon potential advantages to the assessors.

Before closing, however, it should be noted that the significant interaction effect is also reliant on the positive evaluations of female artists rendered by university students. The reasons for this are not clear. It could be that university students view artistic endeavors as a predominantly feminine enterprise and appraise artistic works in a stereotypic fashion. Alternatively, the results could be interpreted in light of Taynor and Deaux's (1973) hypothesis that women who perform well, despite the involuntary limitations of femininity, are seen as more deserving of reward than their male counterparts. Although backed by empirical evidence (Hamner, Kim, Baird, & Bigoness, 1974) and sociological theorizing (Epstein, 1970), this explanation does not account for the effect 's being limited to university students in the case of artistic appraisals, or being ab- sent in the area of academic assessment.

All in all, results reported here do not corroborate the notion of a pervasive devaluation of women. Like other studies, these data suggest that a variety of factors may affect differential evaluation of men and women. In this instance, status of assessor appears as an important predictor of bias; a certain amount of competence in a specific field precedes denigration of women in that area. More negative appraisals are associated with exploitative advantage and are most apparent in those who have a protected interest in the issue. In these studies a pervasive promale bias was not apparent in the appraisal of academic articles, although males devalued female authors in status and competence. This reflected a very specific bias. However, art students more negatively appraised works attributed to females than males, while this tendency was not demonstrated in university

170 Ward

s tudents . These d a t a imply tha t the subtle inf luence o f sex-role s te reo types may not be the sole cause o f p re jud ice agains t women , but deva lua t ion m a y resul t f rom consc ious exp lo i t a t ion . Fu r the r research in this a rea migh t best be d i rec ted towards i so la t ing fac tors which inf luence d i f fe ren t ia l eva lua t ion , ra ther t han a rgu ing for the existence o f a pervas ive den ig ra t ion o f women .

S U MMA R Y

The research was u n d e r t a k e n to cr i t ical ly examine G o l d b e r g ' s concep tua l i za t ion of p re jud ice agains t women as pervas ive and subt ly inf luenced by sex-role s te reotypes . A t t e m p t s to repl ica te G o l d b e r g ' s f indings o f pervas ive deva lua t ion o f w o m e n in areas o f p ro fe s s iona l expert ise fai led with univers i ty men and women . A c a d e m i c art icles

a t t r ibu ted to female au tho r s were not r a t ed s igni f icant ly d i f fe ren t ly f rom those a t t r ibu ted to males . Ma le s tudents , however , deva lued female au thor s per se in s tatus and compe tence . Results o f a th i rd s tudy sugges ted tha t a p r o m a l e bias m a y ref lect a selective advan t age to the assessor. W h e n asked to cr i t ical ly evalua te an ar t is t ic compos i t i on , ar t s tudents overwhe lming ly p re fe r r ed the work asc r ibed to a male art is t ; this t r end was not a p p a r e n t in univers i ty s tudents . These results were in te rp re ted in l ight o f A l l p o r t ' s no t ion o f explo i ta t ive a d v a n t a g e and T o u h e y ' s occupa t iona l pres t ige theory .

REFERENCES

Allport, G. The nature of prejudice. Boston: Beacon Press, 1954. Brief, A., & Wallace, M. The impact of employee sex and performance on allocation of or-

ganizational rewards. Journal of Psychology, 1976, 92, 25-34. Deaux, K., & Farris, E. Re-evaluating the performance o f women: Two replications. Un-

published manuscript, Purdue University, 1975. Deaux, K., & Taynor, J. Evaluation of male and female ability: Bias works two ways. Psy-

chological Reports, 1973, 32(1), 261-262. Dorros, K., & Follett, J. Prejudice towards women as revealed by male college students. Un-

published manuscript, Connecticut College, 1969. Epstein, C. F. Encountering the male establishment: Sex status limits on women's career in

professions. American Journal o f Sociology, 1970, 75, 965-982. Etaugh, C., & Rose, S. Adolescents' sex bias in the evaluation of performance. Develop-

mental Psychology, 1975, I1(5), 663-664. Etaugh, C., & Sanders, S. Evaluation of performance as a function of status and sex variables.

Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 94, 237-241. Fidell, L. S. Empirical verification of sex discrimination in hiring practices in psychology.

American Psychologist, 1970, 25, 1094-1097. Gold, A. Reaction to works by authors differing in sex and achievement, Dissertation Ab-

stracts International, 1972, 336B, 2790. Goldberg, P. Are women prejudiced against women? Trans-action, 1968, 5, 28-32.


Hamner, W. C., Kim, J. S., Baird, L., & Bigoness, W. J. Race and sex as determinants of ratings by potential employers in a simulated work sampling task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59(6), 705-711.

Kitay, P. A comparison of the sexes and their attitudes and beliefs about women: A study of prestige groups. Sociometry, 1940, 34, 399-407.

Levenson, H., Burford, B., Bonno, B., & Davis, L. Are women still prejudiced against women? Journal of Psychology, 1975, 89, 67-71.

Meyer, J., & Sobieszek, B. Effect of a child's sex on adult interpretation of its behavior. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 6, 42-48.

Mischel, H. Sex bias in the evaluation of professional achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66(2), 157-166.

Pheterson, G. Female prejudice against men. Unpublished manuscript, Connecticut College, 1969.

Pheterson, G., Keisler, S., & Goldberg, P. Evaluation of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement and personal history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 19, 1145-118.

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. Sex stereotyping in the executive suite. Harvard Business Review, 1974, 52(2), 45-58.

Soto, D. H., & Cole, C. Prejudice against women: A new perspective. Sex Roles, 1975, 1(4), 385-397.

Starer, R., & Denmark, F. Discrimination against aspiring women. International Journal of Group Tensions, 1974, 4(1), 65-70.

Taynor, J., & Deaux, K. When women are more deserving than men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28(3), 360-367.

Touhey, J. Effects of additional women professionals on the ratings of occupational prestige and desirability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29(1), 86-89.

Ward, C. Differential evaluation of male and female expertise: Prejudice against women? British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1979, 18, 65-69.

Documents

Prejudice against women: Who, when, and why?