Advertisement

European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 191–205 | Cite as

The effects of solo status on women’s and men’s success: The moderating role of the performance context

  • Marie-Laure ViallonEmail author
  • Delphine Martinot
Article

Abstract

A considerable body of research has shown that being the only representative of one’s gender group (solo status) when performing an activity affects women more than men. The aim of our two experiments was to show that the performance context can moderate the effects of numerical status (majority vs. solo) on performance and that men can also be disadvantaged by solo status. Our proposal is that a groupwork context which makes the “leader” stereotype more salient will be more beneficial to men while an intergender comparison context in a typically feminine thematic field will tend to favor women. To test this hypothesis, the numerical status of the women and men was manipulated while they were performing a task presented as a human and social sciences test in either a groupwork or intergender comparison context. As expected, the solo women were less successful in the groupwork context than in the intergender comparison context (Experiment 1) whereas the solo men were less successful in the intergender comparison context than in the groupwork context (Experiment 2). The role of the performance context and the gender stereotypes that it foregrounds seems to be a key factor in the effects of solo status on performance.

Key words

Gender stereotypes Performance Performance context Solo status 

Résumé

De nombreuses recherches montrent qu’être le seul représentant de son groupe de sexe (statut solo) lors d’une performance affecte plus les filles que les garçons. Le but de nos deux expériences est de montrer que le contexte de performance peut modérer les effets d’un statut numérique (majoritaire vs solo) sur les performances. Nous suggérons qu’un contexte de travail en groupe susceptible de rendre saillant le stéréotype de «leader” sera plus favorable aux garçons et qu’un contexte de comparaison intersexe sur un domaine typiquement féminin sera plus favorable aux filles. Pour tester cette hypothèse, le statut numérique des filles et des garçons était manipulé alors qu’ils réalisaient un supposé test en sciences humaines et sociales dans un contexte de travail en groupe ou de comparaison intersexe. Comme attendu, les filles en statut solo réussissaient moins bien que les garçons dans le contexte de travail en groupe alors qu’elles réussissaient aussi bien que les garçons dans le contexte de comparaison intersexe (Expérience 1). Lorsqu ’ils occupaient un statut solo, les garçons réussissaient mieux dans le contexte de travail en groupe que dans le contexte de comparaison intersexe (Expérience 2). Le rôle du contexte de performance dans les études est discuté.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, V.D., & Thoits, P.A. (1985). Token achievement: An examination of proportional representation and performance outcomes.Social Forces, 64, 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaton, A., Tougas, F., Rinfret, N., Huard, N., & Delisle, M.-N. (2007). Strenght in numbers? Women and mathematics.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biernat, M., & Vescio, T.K. (1993). Categorization and stereotyping: Effects of group context on memory and social judgment.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 166–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Branscombe, N., Schmitt, M.T., & Harvey, R.D. (1999). Perceived discrimination among African-Americans: Attributions, group identification, and consequences for well-being.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, L.L., & Swim, J.K. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 876–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craig, J.M., & Sherif, C.W. (1986). The effectiveness of men and women in problem-solving groups as a function of group gender composition.Sex Roles, 14, 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crocker, J., & McGraw, K.M. (1984). What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander: Solo status as an obstacle to occupational achievement for males and females.American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender.Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Floge, L., & Merrill, D.M. (1986). Tokenism reconsidered: Male nurses and female physicians in a hospital setting.Social Forces, 64, 925–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuegen, K., & Biernat, M. (2002). Reexamining the effects of solo status for women and men.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 913–925.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, D.T., & Hixon, J.G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heatherton, T.F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heikes, E.J. (1991). When men are the minority: The case of men in nursing.The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hewstone, M., Crisp, R.J., Contarello, A., Voci, A., Conway, L., Marletta, G., & Willis, H. (2006). Tokens in the tower: Perceptual processes and interaction dynamics in academic settings with ‘skewed’, ‘tilted’, and ‘balanced’ sex ratios.Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, INSEE (2006). Data obtained on 12 January 2008 athttp://www.educnet.education.fr/insee/par/education/filieres3.htm Google Scholar
  17. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males?Psychological Science, 11, 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Izraeli, D.N. (1983). Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter’s theory of proportions.Social Forces, 62, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jemmott, J.B., & Gonzales, E. (1989). Social status, the status distribution, and performance in small groups.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 584–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women.American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krimmel, J.T., & Gormley, P.E. (2003). Tokenism and job satisfaction for policewomen.American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lord, C.G., & Saenz, D.S. (1985). Memory deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 918–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martinot, D., & Désert, M. (2007). Awareness of a gender stereotype, personal beliefs and self-perceptions regarding math ability: When boys do not surpass girls.Social Psychology of Education, 10, 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martinot, D., Désert, M., & Redersdorff, S. (2008). When girls evaluate themselves better than boys in minority situations: Role of the performance context.Current Research in Social Psychology, 13; http://www.uiowa.edu/≈grpproc/crisp/crisp.html.Google Scholar
  25. McDonald, T.W., Toussaint, L.L., & Schweiger, J.A. (2004). The influence of social status on token women leaders’ expectations about leading male dominated groups.Sex roles, 50, 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGuire, W.J., McGuire, C.V., & Winton W. (1979). Effects of household sex composition on the salience of one’s gender in the spontaneous self-concept.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morrison, A., & von Glinow, M. (1990). Women and minorities in management.American Psychologist. Special Issue: Organizational psychology, 45(2), 200–208.Google Scholar
  28. Ott, E.M. (1989). Effects of the male-female ratio at work: Policewomen and male nurses.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pittinsky, T.L., Shih, M., & Ambady, N. (2000). Will a category cue affect you? Category cues, positive stereotypes and reviewer recall for applicants.Social Psychology of Education, 4, 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Redersdorff, S., & Martinot, D. (in press). Being outperformed in an intergroup context: The relationship between group status and self-protective strategies.British Journal of Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  31. Sackett, P., DuBois, C.L., & Noe, A.W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in performance ratings.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saenz, D.S., & Lord, C.G. (1989). Reversing roles: A cognitive strategy for undoing memory deficits associated with token status.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 698–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shih, M., Ambady, N., Richeson, J.A., Fujita, K., & Gray, H.M. (2002). Stereotype performance boosts: The impact of self-relevance and the manner of stereotype activation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T.L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Shifts in quantitative performance from socio-cultural identification.Psychological Science, 10, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spangler, E., Gordon, M.A., & Pipkin, R.M. (1978). Token women: An empirical test of Kanter’s hypothesis.American Journal of Sociology, 84, 160–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spencer, S., Steele, C.M., & Quinn, D.M. (1999). Under suspicion of inability: Stereotype threat and women’s math performance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expectations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1191–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steele, J., James, J.B., & Barnett, R.C. (2002). Learning in a man’s world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor, S.E., Fiske, S.T., Etcoff, N.L., & Ruderman, A.J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thompson, M., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2002). When being different is detrimental: Solo status and the performance of women and racial minorities.Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tulving, E., Schacter, D.L., & Stark, H.A. (1982). Priming effects in word-fragment completion are independent of recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 8, 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsui, A.S., Porter, L.W., & Egan, T.D. (2002). When both similarities and dissimilarities matter: Extending the concept of relational demography.Human Relations, 55, 899–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webster, M., Jr., & Hyson, S.J. (1998). Creating status characteristics.American Sociological Review, 63, 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams, C. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages form en in the “female” professions.Social Problems, 39, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams, J.E., Daws, J.T., Best, D.L., Tilquin, C., Wesley, F., & Bjerke, T. (1979). Sex-trait stereotypes in France, Germany, and Norway.Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 10, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yoder, J.D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers.Gender and Society, 5, 178–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yoder, J.D. (2002). 2001 Division 35 presidential address: Context matters: Understanding tokenism processes and their impact on women’s work.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yoder, J., & Aniakudo, P. (1997). Outsider within the firehouse: Subordination and difference in the social interactions of African American women firefighters.Gender & Society, 11, 324–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yoder, J.D., & Sinnett, L.M. (1985). Is it all in the numbers? A case study of tokenism.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 413–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yoder, J.D., Schleicher, T.L., & McDonald, T. (1998). Empowering token women leaders: The importance of organizationally legitimated credibility.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisbon, Portugal/ Springer Netherlands 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, UMR CNRS 6024Université Blaise PascalClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations