No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams

Madeline Heilman, Michelle C. Haynes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In 3 experimental studies, the authors explored how ambiguity about the source of a successful joint performance outcome promotes attributional rationalization, negatively affecting evaluations of women. Participants read descriptions of a mixed-sex dyad's work and were asked to evaluate its male and female members. Results indicated that unless the ambiguity about individual contribution to the dyad's successful joint outcome was constrained by providing feedback about individual team member performance (Study 1) or by the way in which the task was said to have been structured (Study 2) or unless the negative expectations about women's performance were challenged by clear evidence of prior work competence (Study 3), female members were devalued as compared with their male counterparts - they were rated as being less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role in work on the task. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)905-916
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Applied Psychology
Volume90
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2005

Fingerprint

Mental Competency
Rationalization

Keywords

  • Gender bias
  • Gender stereotypes
  • Sex discrimination
  • Sex stereotypes
  • Teams

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

No credit where credit is due : Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. / Heilman, Madeline; Haynes, Michelle C.

In: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 5, 09.2005, p. 905-916.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bc16c5d234524245af19f4e50aa5678f,
title = "No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams",
abstract = "In 3 experimental studies, the authors explored how ambiguity about the source of a successful joint performance outcome promotes attributional rationalization, negatively affecting evaluations of women. Participants read descriptions of a mixed-sex dyad's work and were asked to evaluate its male and female members. Results indicated that unless the ambiguity about individual contribution to the dyad's successful joint outcome was constrained by providing feedback about individual team member performance (Study 1) or by the way in which the task was said to have been structured (Study 2) or unless the negative expectations about women's performance were challenged by clear evidence of prior work competence (Study 3), female members were devalued as compared with their male counterparts - they were rated as being less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role in work on the task. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed.",
keywords = "Gender bias, Gender stereotypes, Sex discrimination, Sex stereotypes, Teams",
author = "Madeline Heilman and Haynes, {Michelle C.}",
year = "2005",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "905--916",
journal = "Journal of Applied Psychology",
issn = "0021-9010",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - No credit where credit is due

T2 - Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams

AU - Heilman, Madeline

AU - Haynes, Michelle C.

PY - 2005/9

Y1 - 2005/9

N2 - In 3 experimental studies, the authors explored how ambiguity about the source of a successful joint performance outcome promotes attributional rationalization, negatively affecting evaluations of women. Participants read descriptions of a mixed-sex dyad's work and were asked to evaluate its male and female members. Results indicated that unless the ambiguity about individual contribution to the dyad's successful joint outcome was constrained by providing feedback about individual team member performance (Study 1) or by the way in which the task was said to have been structured (Study 2) or unless the negative expectations about women's performance were challenged by clear evidence of prior work competence (Study 3), female members were devalued as compared with their male counterparts - they were rated as being less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role in work on the task. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed.

AB - In 3 experimental studies, the authors explored how ambiguity about the source of a successful joint performance outcome promotes attributional rationalization, negatively affecting evaluations of women. Participants read descriptions of a mixed-sex dyad's work and were asked to evaluate its male and female members. Results indicated that unless the ambiguity about individual contribution to the dyad's successful joint outcome was constrained by providing feedback about individual team member performance (Study 1) or by the way in which the task was said to have been structured (Study 2) or unless the negative expectations about women's performance were challenged by clear evidence of prior work competence (Study 3), female members were devalued as compared with their male counterparts - they were rated as being less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role in work on the task. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed.

KW - Gender bias

KW - Gender stereotypes

KW - Sex discrimination

KW - Sex stereotypes

KW - Teams

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=26444533479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=26444533479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905

DO - 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905

M3 - Article

VL - 90

SP - 905

EP - 916

JO - Journal of Applied Psychology

JF - Journal of Applied Psychology

SN - 0021-9010

IS - 5

ER -