Sex Roles

, Volume 9, Issue 9, pp 943–952 | Cite as

Evaluating competence of women and men: Effects of marital and parental status and occupational sex-typing

  • Claire Etaugh
  • Sue Riley


A sample of 160 female and male college students read a completed job application and a letter written by the applicant. The job was in either a feminine or a masculine field. The applicant was described as either female or male, single or married, and having one or no children. Subjects answered seven evaluative questions about the competence of the applicant and the merits of the letter. Women, especially single ones, who applied for a sex-typical job generally were evaluated most favorably. Men, especially single ones, and women who applied for sex-atypical jobs were evaluated least favorably.


College Student Social Psychology Parental Status Male College Male College Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abramson, P. R., Goldberg, P. A., Greenberg, J. H., & Abramson, L. M. The talking platypus phenomenon: Competency ratings as a function of sex and professional status. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1977, 2, 114–124.Google Scholar
  2. Astin, H. A., & Bayer, A. E. Sex discrimination in academe. Educational Record, Spring 1972, pp. 101–118.Google Scholar
  3. Bigoness, W. J. Effect of applicant's sex, race, and performance on employers' performance ratings: Some additional findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 80–84.Google Scholar
  4. Cash, T. F., Gillen, B., & Burns, D. S. Sexism and “beautyism” in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 301–310.Google Scholar
  5. Cline, M. E., Holmes, D. S., & Werner, J. C. Evaluations of the work of men and women as a function of the sex of the judge and type of work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1977, 7, 89–93.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, S. L., & Bunker, K. A. Subtle effects of sex role stereotypes on recruiters' hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 566–572.Google Scholar
  7. Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K. Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumés. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 39–43.Google Scholar
  8. Etaugh, C., & Rose, S. Adolescents' sex bias in the evaluation of performance. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 663–664.Google Scholar
  9. Etaugh, C., & Sanders, S. Evaluation of performance as a function of status and sex variables. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 94, 237–241.Google Scholar
  10. Ferber, M. A., & Loeb, J. W. Performance, rewards, and perceptions of sex discrimination among male and female faculty. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78, 995–1002.Google Scholar
  11. Goldberg, P. A. Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 1968, 5, 28–30.Google Scholar
  12. Gruber, K. J., & Gaebelein, J. J. Sex differences in listening comprehension. Sex Roles, 1979, 5, 299–310.Google Scholar
  13. Haefner, J. E. Race, age, sex, and competence as factors in employer selection of the disadvantaged. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 199–202.Google Scholar
  14. Havens, E. M. Women, work, and wedlock: A note on female marital patterns in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78, 975–981.Google Scholar
  15. Hough, K. S., & Allen, B. P. Is the “women's movement” erasing the mark of oppression from the female psyche? Journal of Psychology, 1975, 89, 249–258.Google Scholar
  16. Hudis, P. M. Commitment to work and to family: Marital status differences in women's earnings. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 38, 267–278.Google Scholar
  17. Kirk, R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1968.Google Scholar
  18. Levenson, H., Burford, B., Bonno, B., & Davis, L. Are women still prejudiced against women? A replication and extension of Goldberg's study. Journal of Psychology, 1975, 89, 67–71.Google Scholar
  19. Muchinsky, P. M., & Harris, S. L. The effect of applicant sex and scholastic standing on the evaluation of job applicant resumés in sex-typed occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1977, 11, 95–108.Google Scholar
  20. Panek, P. E., Deitchman, R., Burkholder, J. H., Speroff, T., & Haude, R. H. Evaluation of feminine professional competence as a function of level of accomplishment. Psychological Reports, 1976, 38, 875–880.Google Scholar
  21. Peck, T. When women evaluate women, nothing succeeds like success: The differential effects of status upon evaluations of male and female professional ability. Sex Roles, 1978, 4, 205–213.Google Scholar
  22. Piacente, B. S., Penner, L. A., Hawkins, H. L., & Cohen, S. L. Evaluation of the performance of experimenters as a function of their sex and competence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 321–329.Google Scholar
  23. Spreitzer, E., & Riley, L. F. Factors associated with singlehood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1974, 36, 533–542.Google Scholar
  24. Treiman, D. J., & Terrell, K. Sex and the process of status attainment: A comparison of working men and women. American Sociological Review, 1975, 40, 174–200.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Marital status and current living arrangements: March 1975 (Current population reports, Series P-20, No. 287). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Etaugh
    • 1
  • Sue Riley
    • 1
  1. 1.Bradley UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations