SEX BIAS IN CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS OF SUCCESS
One might question whether, even when equivalently evaluated, performances by males and females are attributed to equal skill. In view of the sex-role expectations fostered during the socialization process, it would hardly be surprising to find that they are not. Attributions of causality are very much affected by prior expectations of behavior.
According to attribution theory, when a person performs in a fashion consistent with prior expectations, the outcome is attributed to a stable phenomenon, either of the individual or the situation, one which is enduring and consistent over time. However, when a person performs in a fashion inconsistent with prior expectations, the outcome is attributed to a variable phenomenon, either of the individual or of the situation, one which is unreliable and subject to change from one time to another. Since expectations of the likelihood of success on various tasks are sex-linked, if one adheres to an attribution framework, the consistency or inconsistency of a performance outcome with sex-role stereotypes should affect whether the causal attribution given for that outcome is stable or variable.
Following this reasoning, Deaux and Emswilier conducted an experiment in which subjects evaluated the identical performance of either a male or female on a “masculine” task. Although rated as equally successful, their success was explained quite differently. By both male and female subjects, a woman’s success was attributed to luck (variable phenomenon) rather than to ability; a man’s success was attributed to ability (stable phenomenon) rather than to luck. Explanations of causality were indeed strongly affected by the fit between the sex of actor and expectations of the task.
Feldman-Sumners and Kiesler also explored this issue. In two separate studies subjects had the opportunity to decide the extent to which each of four factors—ability, motivation, task difficulty, and luck—determined another’s performance. Again it was demonstrated that the success of women was attributed to a different cause than was the success of men. Subjects attributed greater motivation (variable phenomenon) to females for the identical performance as that of males, and at least in the case of male subjects, successful professional women were viewed as less capable and as having an easier task than their male counterparts did. These results, along with those from Deaux and Emswiller, were interpreted as supporting the idea that female success (an unexpected event) is most often causally explained by variable phenomena (motivation or luck), and male success (an expected event) is explained by a stable phenomenon (skill).
These studies and others as well (e.g., Feather and Simon) demonstrate that identical performances are not always explained as resulting from equal skill: women’s skill tends to be downgraded as compared to that attributed to men for the same performance. Attributional processes work to confirm the stereotypical conception of men and women. Even objective evidence of a woman’s competence does not necessarily counteract its effects.
Building on these findings, some have considered the possibility that the different causal attributions arising from sex differences provide the basis for sex discrimination within organizations (Terborg and Ilgen). The fact that sex biases the formation of causal attributions does not, by itself, establish the importance of attributional processes in mediating discriminatory behavior. Different attributions must be shown to result in differential allocation of organizational rewards.
In a recent study the relationship between causal attributions and reward allocation was directly tested (Heilman and Guzzo). Subjects, who were MBA students, decided about the appropriateness of various organizational rewards, a raise and a promotion, for those whose successful performance was thought to be because of luck, effort, task difficulty, or skill. They also indicated what their preferred personnel action, if any, would be. The types of causal explanations attributed to successful women were shown to deter from the degree to which organizational rewards were viewed as appropriate personnel actions and if a reward were indeed seen as fitting, to deter from the scope and magnitude of the reward viewed as preferable. It appears that even if they are both judged to be successful, the difference in explanations ordinarily made about the success of males and females can result in their differential treatment in work settings.
We now have considered the ways in which the presumed characteristics of women can create barriers to their career advancement. The normative aspects of sex stereotypes also can present grave problems for them.
*171/187/5*
