Abstract
Goldberg's provocative evidence of 1968 suggesting that female evaluators may be biased against females has initiated extensive research efforts in the last two decades to investigate the nature and extent of any possible prejudice. Recent reviews have concluded that the accumulated evidence is not strongly supportive of the initial claims. However, most of the available research has been conducted in only one country (America), and most of the subject samples have been from a restricted group (college age students). This study was designed to test for evaluative prejudice in a different society, with professional women of Anglo-Australian background, and across the age range from 20 to 60 years. Despite these variations, no evidence of bias against women was detected. The result are discussed with reference to changing societal attitudes and legislation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Bem, S. L. (1993).The lenses of gender. Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Nelson, T. E. (1991). Stereotypes and standards of judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 485–499.
Cline, M. E., Holmes, D. S., & Werner, J. S. (1977). 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, 7, 89–93.
Dixson, M. (1994).The real Matilda: Women and identity in Australia, 1788-to the present. Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin.
Durkin, K. (1987). Social cognition and social context in the construction of sex differences. In M. A. Baker (Ed.),Sex differences in human performance. Chichester: Wiley.
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.
Goldberg, (1968). Are women prejudiced against women?Transaction, 5, 28–30.
Mischel, H. N. (1974). Sex bias in the evaluation of professional achievements.Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 157–166.
Morgan, P. V., & Bottrell, P. J. (1988). Trends in international human resource management.Human Resource Management Australia, 26, 46–53.
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.
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, 353–360.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.
Starer, R., & Denmark, F. (1974). Discrimination against aspiring women.International Journal of Group Tensions, 4, 65–70.
Summers, A. (1994).Damned whores and God's police. Sydney: Penguin.
Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?Psychological Bulletin, 105, 405–429.
Top, T. (1991). Sex bias in the evaluation of performance in the scientific, artistic, literary professions: A review.Sex Roles, 24, 73–103.
Unger, R., & Crawford, M. (1992).Women and gender. A feminist psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
We are grateful to the hospital staff who generously agreed to act as subjects for this study, and to the anonymous reviewer for very helpful comments on an earlier version.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pirri, C., Eaton, E. & Durkin, K. Australian professional women's evaluations of male and female written products. Sex Roles 32, 691–697 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544219
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544219