Sex Roles

, Volume 24, Issue 1–2, pp 73–106 | Cite as

Sex bias in the evaluation of performance in the scientific, artistic, and literary professions: A review

  • Titia J. Top


This article reviews published research on sex differential evaluation of art objects, articles, essays, and poetry that use the Goldberg paradigm in which the sex identification of the stimulus person is varied while the object to be evaluated is kept identical. Sex biases appear to be more limited in scope and more complex in nature than has at first been suspected. The occurrence of antifemale bias appears to depend upon characteristics of the stimulus object or person, characteristics of the judges and the judgment situation, and the way in which judgments are provided. However, none of the studies used professional judges, or provided realistic judgment procedures and contexts. Therefore the question of the external validity of the studies remains open.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aamiry, A., & Steitieh, D. M. (1986). The impact of readers sex and training on gender prejudice among university students in Jordan. Dirastat, 13, 7–17.Google Scholar
  2. Abramson, P. R., Goldberg, P. A., Greenberg, J. H., & Abramson, L. M. (1977). The talking platypus phenomenon: competency ratings as a function of sex and professional status. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 114–124.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R., & Nida, S. A. (1978). Effects of physical attractiveness on opposite- and same-sex evaluations. Journal of Personality, 46, 401–413.Google Scholar
  4. Arvey, R. D. (1979). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: legal and psychological aspects. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 736–765.Google Scholar
  5. Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: Toward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5, 219–248.Google Scholar
  6. Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1986). The social psychology of female-male relations. A critical analysis of central concepts. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baruch, G. K. (1972). Maternal influences upon college women's attitudes toward women and work. Developmental Psychology, 6, 32–37.Google Scholar
  8. Bem, S. L., & Bem, D. J. (1970). Case study of a nonconscious ideology: training the woman to know her place. In D. J. Bem (Eds.), Beliefs, attitudes and human affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  9. Bodenhausen, G. V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 726–737.Google Scholar
  10. Bodenhausen, G. V., & Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information-processing strategies: the impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871–880.Google Scholar
  11. Caplan, P. J. (1985). Sex roles and sex differences: Introduction. International Journal of Women's Studies, 8, 441–448.Google Scholar
  12. Cash, T. F., & Trimer, C. A. (1984). Sexism and beautyism in women's evaluations of peer performance. Sex Roles, 10, 87–98.Google Scholar
  13. Chobot, D. S., Goldberg, P. A., & Abramson, L. M. (1974). Prejudice against women: A replication and extension. Psychological Reports, 35, 478.Google Scholar
  14. Cline, M. E., Holmes, D. S., & Werner, J. C. (1977). Evaluations of the work of men and women as a function of the sex of the judge and type of worm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 89–93.Google Scholar
  15. Connor, J., Byrne, F., Mindell, J., Cohen, D., & Nixon, E. (1986). Use of the titles M., Miss, or Mrs.: Does it make a difference? Sex Roles, 14, 545–549.Google Scholar
  16. Deaux, K. (1976). Sex: a perspective on the attribution process. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attributions research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Deaux, K., & Taylor, J. (1973). Evaluation of male and female ability: Bias works two ways. Psychological Reports, 32, 261–262.Google Scholar
  18. Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of résumé evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 288–294.Google Scholar
  19. Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant résumés. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 39–43.Google Scholar
  20. Dobbins, G. H., Stuart, C., Pence, E. C., & Sgro, J. A. (1985). Cognitive mechanisms mediating the biasing effects of leader sex on ratings of leader behavior. Sex Roles, 12, 549–560.Google Scholar
  21. Ellerman, D. A., & Smith, E. R. (1983). Generalized and individual bias in the evaluation of the work of women: Sexism in Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 35, 71–79.Google Scholar
  22. Ellerman, D. A., Dowling, C. M., Hinschen, M. L., Kemp, J. E., & White, L. K. (1981). Teachers' evaluation of creative work by children: Sexism in Australia. Psychological Reports, 48, 439–446.Google Scholar
  23. Etaugh, C., & Kasley, H. C. (1981). Evaluating competence: Effects of sex, marital status, and parental status. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 196–203.Google Scholar
  24. Etaugh, C., & Rose, S. (1975). Adolescents' sex bias in the evaluation of performance. Developmental Psychology, 11, 663–664.Google Scholar
  25. Etaugh, C., & Sanders, S. (1974). Evaluation of performance as a function of status and sex variables. Journal of Social Psychology, 94, 237–241.Google Scholar
  26. Etaugh, C., Houtler, B. D., & Ptasnik, P. (1988). Evaluating competence of women and men. Effects of experimenter gender and group gender composition. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 191–200.Google Scholar
  27. Feldman-Summers, S., & Kiesler, S. B. (1974). Those who are number two try harder: The effect of sex on attributions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 846–855.Google Scholar
  28. Fidell, L. S. (1970). Empirical verification of sex discrimination in hiring practices in psychology. American Psychologist, 25, 1094–1097.Google Scholar
  29. Friend, P., Kalin, R., & Giles, H. (1979). Sex bias in the evaluation of journal articles: Sexism in England. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 77–78.Google Scholar
  30. Frieze, I. H., Parsons, J. E., Johnson, P. B., Ruble, d. N., & Zellmann, G. L. (1978). Women and sex roles. A social psychological perspective. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  31. Gold, A. (1972). Reactions to work by authors differing in sex and achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 336B, 2790.Google Scholar
  32. Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5, 28–30.Google Scholar
  33. Gross, M. M., & Geffner, R. A. (1980). Are the times changing? An analysis of sex-role prejudice. Sex Roles, 6, 713–722.Google Scholar
  34. Haemmerlie, F. M., Abdul-Wakeel, A., & Pomeroy, M. (1985). Male sex bias against men and women in various professions. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 797–798.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, J. A. (1987). On explaining gender differences. The case of nonverbal communication. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, (Vol. 7). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Hamilton, D. L., Trolier, T. K. (1986). Stereotypes and stereotyping: an overview of the cognitive approach. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hansen, R. D., & O'Leary, V. E. (1985). Sex-determined attributions. In V. E. O'Leary, R. Unger & B. S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Heilman, M. E. (1975). Miss, Mrs., Ms. or none of the above. American Psychologist, 30, 516–518.Google Scholar
  39. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.Google Scholar
  40. Hepburn, C. (1985). Memory for the frequency of sex-typed versus neutral behaviors: Implicatiosn for the maintenance of sex stereotypes. Sex Roles, 12, 771–776.Google Scholar
  41. Isaacs, M. B. (1981). Sex role stereotyping and the evaluation of the performance of women: changing trends. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 187–195.Google Scholar
  42. Kiesler, S. B. (1975). Actuarial prejudice toward women and its implications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 201–216.Google Scholar
  43. Landy, D., & Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is talent: task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 299–304.Google Scholar
  44. Lenney, E., Mitchell, L., & Browning, C. (1983). The effect of clear evaluation criteria on sex bias in judgments of performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7, 313–328.Google Scholar
  45. Levenson, H., Burford, B., Bonno, B., & Davis, L. (1975). Are women still prejudiced against women? Journal of Psychology, 89, 67–71.Google Scholar
  46. Lott, B. (1985). The devaluation of women's competence. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 43–60.Google Scholar
  47. Miller, A. G. (1982). Historical and contemporary perspectives on stereotyping. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), In the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  48. Mischel, H. N. (1974). Sex bias in the evaluation of professional achievements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 157–166.Google Scholar
  49. Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 5, 267–276.Google Scholar
  50. Noel, R. C., & Allen, M. J. (1976). Sex and ethnic bias in the evaluation of student editorials. Journal of Psychology, 94, 53–58.Google Scholar
  51. Olian, J. D., Schwab, D. P., & Haberfeld, Y. (1988). The impact of applicant gender compared to qualifications on hiring recommendations. A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 180–195.Google Scholar
  52. Paludi, M. A., & Bauer, W. D. (1983). Goldberg revisited: What's in an author's name? Sex Roles, 9, 387–390.Google Scholar
  53. Paludi, M. A., & Strayer, L. A. (1985). What's in an author's name — Differential evaluations of performance as a function of author's name. Sex Roles, 12, 353–361.Google Scholar
  54. Panek, P. E., Deitchman, R., Burkholder, J. H., Speroff, T., & Haude, R. H. (1976). Evaluation of feminine professional competence as a function of level of accomplishment. Psychological Reports, 38, 875–880.Google Scholar
  55. Peck, T. (1978). When women evaluate women, nothing succeeds like success: The differential effects of status upon evaluations of male and female professional ability. Sex Roles, 4, 205–213.Google Scholar
  56. Pheterson, G. I., Kiesler, S. B., & Goldberg, P. A. (1971). Evaluation of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement, and personal history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 114–118.Google Scholar
  57. Pheterson, T. (1969). Female prejudice against men. Unpublished manuscript, Connecticut College.Google Scholar
  58. Powell, G. N. (1987). The effects of sex and gender on recuritment. Academy of Management Review, 12, 731–743.Google Scholar
  59. Ruble, D. N., & Ruble, T. L. (1982). Sex stereotypes. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), In the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  60. Ruble, T., Cohen, R., & Ruble, D. N. (1984). Sex stereotypes. Occupational barriers for women. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 339–356.Google Scholar
  61. Starer, R., & Denmark, F. (1974). Discrimination against aspiring women. International Journal of Group Tensions, 4, 65–70.Google Scholar
  62. Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409–429.Google Scholar
  63. Tanner, L. R. (1977). Sex bias in children's response to literature. Language Arts, 54, 48–50.Google Scholar
  64. Terborg, J. R. (1977). Women in management: a research review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 647–664.Google Scholar
  65. Todler, N. L. (1981). The effect of the sexual composition of a group on discrimination against women and sex-role attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 292–310.Google Scholar
  66. Wallston, B. S., & O'Leary, V. E. (1981). Sex makes a difference: differential perceptions of women and men. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology. (Vol. 2). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  67. Ward, C. (1979). Different evaluations of male and female expertise: Prejudice against women? British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 65–69.Google Scholar
  68. Ward, C. (1981). Prejudice against women: Who, when, and why? Sex Roles, 7, 163–171.Google Scholar
  69. Wiggins, J. S. (1973). personality and prediction: principles of personality assessment. Reeding, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  70. Zeldow, P. B. (1978). Sex differences in psychiatric evaluation and treatment. An empirical review. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 89–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Titia J. Top
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations