Abstract
We demonstrate the power of a situated identity perspective for understanding the different attributional patterns of women and men in an academic setting and their differential experiences in the workplace. Two explanations for the gender difference found in attributions of success are considered. This difference may be due either to different identities being attributed to men and women employing the same explanations for success and failure, or to the inconsistency between actions that confirm a professional (academic) identity and women's gender identity. The results of this survey of senior social science faculty men support the latter explanation but not the former. An editorial acceptance was seen as more professional but less feminine than a rejection. In the eyes of senior colleagues, the modest account of success, typical of women academics, enhances femininity but detracts from professionalism. The self-serving account typical of men makes the offerer appear less feminine but more professional. Thus in their situated identity claims, successful academic women, but not men, must choose between their professional and gender identities. Despite the movement of women into university social science positions, the role of academic has a masculine face.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, C. N., & Knight, G. (1971). Situated identities and social psychological experimentation. Sociometry, 34, 65–82.
Alexander, C. N., & Wiley, M. G. (1981). Situated activity and identity formation. In M. Rosenberg & R. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives. Basic Books: New York.
Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 272–279.
Bem, S. (1975). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Berg, J. H., Stephan, W. G., & Dodson, M. (1981). Attributional modesty in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 711–727.
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59–78.
Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56–71.
Burke, P. C., & Reitzes, D. J. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 83–92.
Crittenden, K., & Wiley, M. G. (1985). When egotism is normative: Self-presentational norms guiding attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 360–365.
Deaux, K, & Major, B. (1989). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Ward, C. (1988). Attribution theory and processes: A cross-cultural perspective. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Frieze, I. H., Whitley, B. E., Jr., Hanusa, B. H. & McHugh, M. C. (1982). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure. Sex Roles, 8, 333–343.
Gould, R. J., & Slone C. G. (1982). The “feminine modesty” effect: A self-presentational interpretation of sex differences in causal attribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 477–485.
Heatherington, L., Crown, J., Wagner H., & Rigby, S. (1989). Toward an understanding of social consequences of feminine immodesty about personal achievements. Sex Roles, 20, 371–380.
Markus, H., & Sentis, K (1982). The self in social information processing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McHugh, M. C., Fisher, J. E., & Frieze, I. H. (1982). Effect of situational factors on the self-attributions of females and males. Sex Roles, 8, 389–397.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The “good manager”: Masculine or androgenous? Academy of Management Journal, 22, 395–403.
Santee, R. T., & Jackson, S. E. (1982). Identity implications of conformity: Sex differences in normative and attributional judgments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 112–125.
Schein, V. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.
Schein, V. (1976). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340–344.
Schein, V. (1978). Sex role stereotyping, ability and performance: Prior research and new directions. Personnel Psychology, 31, 259–269.
Schein, V., Mueller, R., & Jacobson, C. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles, 20, 103–110.
Snyder, M. L., Stephan, W. G., & Rosenfield, D. (1978). Attributional egotism. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relations to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39.
Tetlock, P. E. (1981). The influence of self-presentation goals on attributional reports. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 300–311.
Wiley, M. G., & Alexander, C. N. (1987). From situated activity to self-attribution: The impact of social structural schemata. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), Self and Identity. New York: Wiley.
Wiley, M. G., & Crittenden, K S. (1988). Masculine, feminine, desirable: Current appraisal of gender related traits. Paper presented at the Meetings of the American Sociological Association.
Wiley, M. G., Crittenden, K S., & Birg, L. D. (1979). Why a rejection? Causal attribution of a career achievement event. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 353–358.
Williams, J. E., & Bennett, S. M. (1975). The definition of sex stereotypes via the adjective check list. Sex Roles, 1, 327–337.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Order of authors was determined by a coin toss.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wiley, M.G., Crittenden, K.S. By your attributions you shall be known: Consequences of attributional accounts for professional and gender identities. Sex Roles 27, 259–276 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289928
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289928