Perception of Female and Male Success in the United States and Third World Nations I

Transcription

1 Sex Roles, Vol. 10, Nos. 11/12, 1984 Perception of Female and Male Success in the United States and Third World Nations I Stephanie H. Smith 2 Indiana University Northwest George I. Whitehead III Salisbury State College Nan M. Sussman International Council on Education for Teaching This study tested the proposition that the success of an intelligent female in the third worm is attributed more to ability and less to nonability factors than the success of her male counterpart. To this end, subjects from developing nations attributed the success of an American or third world male or female of average or high intelligence to ability, effort, luck, and task ease. Results indicated that subjects attributed the success of the intelligent third world female more to ability and less to luck than the success of the comparable male. In addition, gender differences were found which indicated that under some circumstances the success of the female more than that of the male is attributed to task ease. Research in the early 1970's found that males and females in the United States attributed the success of American males more than females to ability and the success of American females more than males to nonability factors such as luck (Deaux & Emswiller, 1974) or effort (Feldman-Summers & Kiesler, 1974). These results were replicated in Australia (Feather & Simon, 1975). However, recent research has not always replicated these findings. Using a sample of Canadian college students, Haccoun and Stacy (1980) found that success by a female was 1 The authors would like to thank Kevin McCaul, Frank Dane, and Jack Brehm for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of the Washington International Center while conducting the study. A version of this paper was read at the International Interdisciplinary Congress on Women, Haifa, Israel, Correspondence should be sent to Stephanie Smith, Department of Psychology, Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana /84/ ,50/ Plenum Publishing Corporation

2 904 Smith, Whitehead, and Sussman attributed more to effort than a comparable success by a male, and success by a male was attributed more to luck than a comparable success by a female. Another study with Canadian subjects also failed to replicate the earlier research findings (Lips & Myers, 1980). The failures to replicate are not limited to Canadian subjects. Recently, Post (1981) found no sex-biased causal attributions for male and female success with a sample of college students from the United States. 3 These failures to replicate may support Gergen's (1973) thesis that some findings in psychological research are specific to a particular time and place in history. Thus, people's judgments of males and females may be based on particular cultural or subcultural norms. Therefore, it may be important to know the current status of males and females in any particular culture to predict the attributions made to males and females. In this regard, the present study focuses on the attributions males and females in third world nations make to successful males and females in their own countries and in the United States. In third world nations, the position of females is generally more inferior to that of males than it is in industrialized nations. For example, the female/male literacy rate, the female/male ratio of white collar jobs, and the percentage of women in nonagricultural occupations is lower in Africa, Asia, and West Asia than in any other area of the world (Boulding, 1977). Furthermore, in the Arab nations, women have traditionally been excluded from education and participation in public life (Patai, 1973). Today, in Arab nations, educated women are still only a small elite (Hayani, 1980), and industrial education for women is almost nonexistent (El-Dine Saber, 1977). Thus, a successful female in business and industry in the third world is overcoming the handicap of her gender to a greater extent than her male counterpart. Research by Taynor and Deaux (1973) is relevant to this issue of overcominghandicaps or constraints. In their study, a female overcoming a constraint by performing well in a masculine situation was more favorably evaluated than her male counterpart who was not overcoming such a constraint. Taynor and Deaux suggest that ability and/or effort attributions should increase for the female overcoming a constraint depending on the situation. In the situation they employed, effort was the most salient dimension. Thus, when a man and a woman performed the same act in a masculine situation, the performance of the female was attributed more to effort than that of the male. Taynor and Deaux's findings support the notion that people adopt a salient explanation in the forming of causal attributions (Kanouse, 1972; Taylor & Fiske, 1975). To employ 3Similar results were found by Galper and Luck (1980). However, their study may not be directly comparable. Rather than have subjects attribute ability and nonability factors, Galper and Luck had subjects make attributions on a 10-point scale indicating the extent to which a behavior was due to the person or situation.

3 Third World Nations 905 this idea in the present study it is necessary to manipulate the saliency of a possible explanation for success. According to Taynor and Deaux's logic, then, the third world female who is successful in a male-dominated field has overcome a societal constraint. Thus, her success might be attributed to ability and/or effort. However, it will only be attributed to one of these factors when one of them is salient and applicable to her. In the present study, the ability (intelligence) of the person is manipulated. Thus, it is predicted that only the success of the highly intelligent female will be attributed more to ability and less to nonability factors, e.g., luck, than that of her male counterpart. This difference is expected only when the female is a native of the third world and only when she is highly intelligent. Such a female is clearly overcoming the handicap of being in a part of the world where her position is inferior to that of the male in business and industry. METHOD Subfects The subjects were 106 male and 34 female participants in international training programs. Most were mid-career people (median age 33) who traveled to the United States for advanced technical training or graduate programs. All were from developing countries in Africa (n = 77), Asia (n = 30), and the Middle East (n = 33). During their first week in the United States, participants attended an orientation seminar to American life. It was at the end of this seminar that subjects participated in this study. The experiment was conducted in groups ranging in size from 5-15 individuals. Procedure At the beginning of each experimental session, subjects were told that they were going to be involved in a study of how people form impressions of other people. In addition, they were informed that they would be reading some information about a worker in a manufacturing company and making personal judgments about it. Subjects were then given a detailed introduction discussing the importance of following the instructions, an explanation of how to use a Likert scale, and assurances of the confidentiality of answers. Each experimental booklet, randomly assigned, contained an instruction sheet, the stimulus materials, and the dependent measures. After responding to the dependent measures, subjects were given a full explanation of the nature of the research.

4 906 Smith, Whitehead, and Sussman Stimulus Materials Each subject read about a male or a female person (P) who applied for a job in a large manufacturing company. P was hired by the company in one of their entry positions. Two months later, P was promoted to a higher Position in the company. The intelligence of P was manipulated by stating that P's schooling indicated that P was of either average or very high intelligence. The nationality of P was manipulated by stating that P was a native of the United States who was working in the United States or that P was a native of the subject's country who was working in that country. Thus, the P who was a native of the United States was successful in the United States, and the P who was a native of the subject's country was successful in the subject's country. Measuring Instruments After reading the information, each subject responded to five seven-step rating scales. One item assessed the extent to which a subject thought P was intelligent. The other four items assessed the causal factors delineated by Weiner et al. (1971): ability, effort, luck, and ease of task. Thus, a subject indicated the extent to which P's promotion was first a result of ability, second a result of hard work, third a result of good luck, and fourth a result of the ease of getting promoted at P's company. RESULTS Each measure was analyzed by a (gender of P nationality of P intelligence of P gender of subject) unweighted means analysis of variance. 4 Intelligence of P The P who was described to be highly intelligent was rated as more intelligent than the P who was described to have average intelligence (F(1,123) = 16.61, p <.001). The means were 4.63 and 5.71 for the average and highly intelligent conditions, respectively. The analysis revealed no other significant effects. Thus, the manipulation of intelligence was effective. 4A preliminary analysis which included the subject's nationality demonstrated little difference among the nationalities. Thus, this factor is ignored in the analysis which is reported.

5 Third World Nations 907 Ability Attributions The means on the ability measure for each of the conditions of the design are presented in Table I. As predicted, there was a significant interaction between gender of P, the nationality of P, and the intelligence of P (F(1,123) = 5.78, p <.02. When judging the success of a highly intelligent P who was a native of the subject's country, subjects attributed the promotion more to ability when P was female (M = 5.83) than male (M = 4.88, t(123) = 1.80, p <.05, onetailed test). The other three comparisons between the mnte and female Ps were not significant (ts ranging from ). In addition, a significant main effect of subject's gender (F(1,123) = 4.71, p <.03) indicated that female subjects judged the promotion to be due to ability more than male subjects. The means were 5.56 and 4.89 for the female and male subjects respectively. Effort A ttrib utions There were no significant effects on this measure. Luck Attributions s The means on the luck measure for each of the conditions of the design are presented in Table I. There was a significant interaction between the gender of P, the nationality of P, and the intelligence of P (/7(1,123)= 7.10, p <.009). When judging the success of a highly intelligent P who was a native of the subject's country, subjects attributed the promotion less to luck when the other was female (M = 2.83) than male (M = 4.75, t(123) = 3.20, p <.01, two-tailed test. The other three comparisons between the male and female Ps were not significant (ts ranging from ). Ease of Task A ttributions 6 The means on the ease of task measure for each of the conditions of the design are presented in Table I. The analysis produced several unexpected interactions. The interaction between the gender of P, nationality of P, and the gen- 5The analysis of this measure also revealed four other reliable effects. Since each of these was involved in the triple interaction, only the analysis of the triple interaction is reported. 6 The analysis of this measure revealed two other reliable effects. Since each of these was involved in the triple interaction, only the analysis of the triple interaction is reported.

6 908 Table I. Smith, Whitehead, and Sussman Mean Attributions to Ability, Luck, and Task Ease as a Function of Gender of Subject, and Gender, Nationality, and Intelligence ofp a Male subject Female subject Characteristics of P Male P Female P Male P Female P Native of third world High intelligence 4.60 b c d Average intelligence Native of United States High intelligence Average intelligence athe higher the number, the greater the attribution. bability attributions. CLuck attributions. dtask ease attributions. der of the subject was significant (F(1,123) = 4.91, p <.03). Male subjects attributed the promotion to the ease of the task more when the P who was a native of and successful in the United States was female (M = 3.78) than male (M = 2.46, t(123) = 2.64, p<.01). None of the other comparisons between subjects' responses to the male and female P were significant (ts < 1). The interaction between the gender of P, the intelligence of P, and the gender of the subject was also significant (F(1,123) = 6.70, p <.01). Female subjects attributed the promotion less to the ease of the task when P was ahighly intelligent female (M = 1.90) than a highly intelligent male (M = 3.60, t(123) = 2.59, p <.01). Female subjects also attributed the promotion more to the ease of the task when P was an average intelligent female (M = 3.75) than an average intelligent male (M = 1.83, t(123) = 2.66, p <.01). For males, the evaluations of the male and female P were not statistically different (ts < 1). DISCUSSION This study found that the success of an intelligent female in the third world was attributed more to ability and less to luck than the success of her male counterpart. It was predicted that ability would explain the female's performance because her intelligence is a salient dimension. In this study, luck may ex-

7 Third World Nations 909 plain the male's performance because the promotion occurred fairly quickly (after only 2 months on the job). These findings then are generally consistent with Taynor and Deaux's notion that a female is more favorably evaluated than a male when she overcomes a constraint. Recall in the present study the constraint was that, in third world nations, women are often not present in the business world. Furthermore, these findings are consistent with the notion that, in making attributions to such a woman, salient explanations are adopted. In this regard, it is noteworthy that, while the manipulation of intelligence was successful, the difference was relatively small. Perhaps being successful implies some degree of intelligence. Despite this small difference, the manipulation of intelligence did have the predicted impact on causal attributions. One interesting aspect of the ability and luck attributions is the failure to find that people evaluated a male significantly more favorably (greater ability and less luck) than a female when presumably there were fewer societal constraints which the female overcame, i.e., when P was a native American female. This equality may reflect the fact that a promotion implies that a qualified judge has given unequivocal proof that P has ability. It may also be that this proof is a necessary condition to obtain a more favorable evaluation of females than males when females have societal constraints. There is evidence to indicate that for male subjects the success of an American female is attributed more to task ease than the success of an American male. Furthermore, for female subjects, the success of a female of average intelligence is attributed more to task ease than the success of a male of average intelligence. However, these findings do not demonstrate that success is attributed more to ability for males than females and more to nonability factors for females than males. First, the findings on task ease are limited by the subject's gender. Second, males did not attribute the success of the American male more to ability than the success of the American female, and females did not attribute the success of the male of average intelligence more to ability than the success of the female of average intelligence. As a result, these findings indicate that when a female is successful in the United States or her ability is not clear-cut, attributions are made to external factors. It is interesting to note that third world males attribute the success of an American female to an external factor, a result similar to that obtained with American subjects (Deaux, 1976). The additional finding that females attributed the success of the highly intelligent female less to task ease than the success of her male counterpart is consistent with the idea that success by an intelligent female is due less to nonability factors than success by an intelligent male. However, because all of the effects on task ease were unexpectedly related to the subject's gender they should be replicated. While this study only measured the attributions originally specified by Weiner et al. (1971), there may be others which are relevant to the success of

8 910 Smith, Whitehead, and Sussman third world others. For example, third world others may be judged successful because they are members of a high social class. Attributions such as these, however, may be more affected by culture than gender. The fact that the subjects in the present study were from third world nations raises two questions. First, to what extent would non-third world subjects explain the success of a third world female as due more to ability and less to luck than the success of a third world male? The answer to this question may depend upon the extent to which non-third world subjects are aware of the status differential in the third world. Second, to what extent do the findings from fairly educated third world subjects generalize to the less educated living in third world nations? The answer to this question may depend upon the extent to which these biases covary with education. Future research might address these issues. REFERENCES Boulding, E. Women in the twentieth century. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Deaux, K. Sex: A perspective on the attribution process. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, and R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, El-Dine Saber, M. Development and adult education in the Arab states: An analysis of some issues. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED ). Toronto: International Council for Adult Education, Feather, N. T., & Simon, J. G. Reactions to male and female success and failure in sexlinked occupations: Impressions of personality, causal attributions, and perceived likelihood of different consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, Feldman-Summers, S., & Kiesler, S. B. Those who are number two try harder: The effect of sex on attributions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, Galper, R. E., & Luck, D. Gender, evaluation, and causal attribution. The double standard is alive and well. Sex Roles, 1980, 6, Gergen, K. J. Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, Haccoun, D. M., & Stacy, S. Perceptions of male and female success or failure in relation to spouse encouragement and sex-association of occupation. Sex Roles, 1980, 6, Hayani, I. The changing role of Arab women. Convergence: An International Journal of Adult Education, 1980, 13, Kanouse, D. E. Language, labeling and attribution. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner (Eds), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, Lips, H. M., & Myers, A. M. Subject reactions to a stimulus person as a function of sex of subject and sex-role appropriateness of stimulus person's career goal. Sex Roles, 1980, 6, Patai, R. The Arab mind. New York: Charles Schribner's Sons, Post, R. D. Causal explanations of male and female academic performance as a function of sex-role biases. Sex Roles, 1981, 7,

9 Third World Nations 911 Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32, Taynor, J., & Deaux, K. When women are more deserving than men: Equity, attribution, and perceived sex differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28, Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L, Rest, S. A., & Rosenbaum, R. M. Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971.