Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Psychology Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Social Psychology
Quarterly
1996,Vol. 59, No. 3, 237-254
University
ofBritishColumbia
liking,controlmotives,or groupprejudices)
can affectwhatstandardswill be used. The
In task-orientedgroups, the processes researchpresentedhere links standardsto
wherebyindividualsassign competenceto groupprejudices.Specifically,the objective
eachotherhavecrucialconsequencesfortheir is to studywhether,under certaincondifutureinteraction.The standardsused to
forcompetenceare
tions,different
standards
judge thatcompetence,in turn,play a key
used to evaluatemembersof different
social
role in these processes:because such stancategories-evenwhen theyperformat the
thelevel and type
dardsare normsspecifying
same level. The workfocuseson genderas
of outcome requiredto inferability,the
the
basis of sucha doublestandard.In other
inferencevaries dependingon the standard
words,
giventhatwomenoftenare assigned
used. For example, a score of 70% is
lower
levels
of abilitythan men, to what
sufficient
evidenceforabilityif thestandard
extent
is
this
assignmentthe resultof the
is 60% or higher,butthatscorebecomesan
if the standardis applicationof a double standard,which is
unconvincing
performance
forthefemaleperformers?
Whatare
at least 80%. A similarexample may be stricter
some
of
the
variables
that
affect
when
this
constructed
forlack of ability.Because the
occurs?
The
states
research
expectation
assignmentof task competenceis directly
its branchon status
relatedto achievingstatusand influencein a program,particularly
thetheoretical
characteristics,
provides
backto understandhow
group, it is important
ground.
are set.
standards
the
Expectationstatestheoryinvestigates
In manytasks, standardsare not clearly
ofpowerandprestigehierachies
defined beforehand.As a result, factors development
unrelatedto the task (e.g., interpersonalin task groups(Bergeret al. 1977; Berger,
Wagner, and Zelditch 1985; Wagner and
Berger1993; Websterand Foschi 1988). The
* The studiesreported
in thisarticlewerecarriedout
tradition,and
undera researchgrantfromthe Social Sciences and theoryhas a long-standing
providestrongsupportfor
HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada (# 482-88- empiricalfindings
0015, StrategicGrantsDivision, Women and Work its predictions.(For assessments,see, for
acknowledgethissupport.I would example, Deaux 1985; Wiley 1986.) A
Theme). I gratefully
also like to thankRicardo Foschi for his work in
developingthe computerprogramforthe experimental centralconceptin thisprogramis thatof a
any valued attribute
task;LarissaLai, MarieLembesis,and KirstenSigerson "statuscharacteristic,"
for theirassistancein runningthe experiments;and implying
taskcompetence.Such characterison an earlier ticsconsistof at leasttwo states(e.g., either
SandraSchmidtforhereditorialcomments
to the
versionof this article. Direct correspondence
or low levelof mechanicalability,either
ofAnthropology
andSociology, high
authorat theDepartment
limitedor extensiveformaleducation),one of
Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada V6T IZI.
whichis evaluatedmorepositivelythanthe
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
237
238
DOUBLE STANDARDS
239
No doublestandards
The higherthe nevertheless.
benefiting
forlower-status
performers.2
are predictedfor(2) or
inconsistency
betweenstatusand outcome, the male performer
thestandard.
thestricter
(3).
and
Once a double standardis activated,it
I propose the status characteristics
multiplestandardstheoryfor a situationin affectsthe degreeof abilitythatis inferred.
to
whicha person(self) workson a joint task The applicationof a morelenientstandard
are themanensuresthatmoreabilityis assigned
witha partner(other).The propositions
statedfromself's pointof view and applyto to him, regardlessof level of performance,
or diffuse, thanto the woman withthe same record.3
any statuscharacteristic-specific
with Thus double standardscontributeto the
individually
as well as in combination
forthecase maintenanceof the initial,status-basedasothers.HereI presenta summary
of gender,and assume the followingscope signmentof competenceand are another
of thepowerandprestigeorderof
conditions:(1) self values the task and is component
bothto do it well and to arriveat the group. The practice is both subtle
motivated
correctassessmentsof the two performers' (because it does notinvolveeitherdevaluing
theperformance
competence;(2) selfis awarethatthepartner or overvaluing
directly)and
is not necessarilyconscious(because an actor
is oftheoppositesex (i.e., sex ofperformer
a salientfactorin thesituation);
(3) selftreats does not have to formulatesuch standards
(i.e., explicitlyin order to use them). For an
genderas a diffusestatuscharacteristic
an indicationof women's inferiorcompe- alternativebut compatibleformulation
on
also proposedwithinexpectence); (4) self knows the resultsof each doublestandards,
(as- tationstatestheory,see Foddyand Smithson
person's prior individualperformance
sessedby a thirdparty)and believestheseto (1989); also see BiernatandManis(1994) and
be unbiased, but no previouslyset and Biernat,Manis, and Nelson (1991) fortheir
are availableby which workon stereotypes
and shifting
agreed-upon
standards
standards.4
Multiple standardsfor competencethat
to inferability(or lack thereof)fromthose
at thesame benefitthe higher-status
results;(5) bothpersonsperform
are comperformer
level; and (6) self has no othergroundson mon in a varietyof everydaytask settings,
whichto base assessmentsof task compe- rangingfrominformal
groupsto formalwork
contexts.The social psychologicalliterature
tence.
Foschi(1989) specifiesthatselfmaydefine containsseveraldescriptions
of theiroperathe task in one of the followingways: (1)
3 Othertypesof gender-based
(3) explicitlydissomasculine,(2) feminine,
double standardsalso
in codesofmorality
andcriteria
ciated from gender, or (4) not explicitly exist,suchas differences
Similarly,double (or even
definedin relationto gender.It is predicted for physicalattractiveness.
multiple)standardsfor competencemay be based on
thatin (1), selfwill tendto activatea stricter attributes
otherthanstatuscharacteristics
(e.g., level of
forcompe- interpersonalliking, or personal qualities such as
standard
forthefemaleperformer,
In general,a multiplestandard
refersto the
Thisalso friendliness).
tenceas wellas lackofcompetence.
criteriaforassessingthe same trait(or
will occur in (4), where genderand task use of different
or performance)in different
categoriesof
become relatedthrough"status generaliza- behavior
people. The presentresearchis concernedonly with
tion." In this process, a status attribute gender-based
in inferring
doublestandards
ability.For a
becomesrelevantto the task at hand unless reviewof varioustypesofmultiplestandards,see Foschi
to thecontrary. (1992).
thereis specificinformation
4 Also, in some conditions,
thelower-status
personis
In such a case, thedoublestandardswill be
treated with a more lenient (but not explicitly stated)
less pronouncedthan when the task is standardthanthe higher-status
counterpart,
and is told
themselves thathis or herperformance
masculine,buttheywill manifest
is a sufficient
demonstration
2
doublestandardto refereitherto
I use theexpression
one personwhois assessingtheperformances
byhimself
in a particular
orherself
andbya specificpartner
context,
or to theaveragerequirement
appliedto selfand to other
by a numberof individuals.I use the plural double
standards,however,ifI wishto emphasizethata double
standard
of different
maybe activated,either
magnitude
by each of severalindividualsor by the same person
whenmakingassessmentsacross variouscircumstances
and/or
partners.
ofabilitywheninfactitis not.Suchstatements
arerarely
theresultof a genuineerrorin assessment
butratherare
madeforotherpurposes:forinstance,to avoidconveying
a poorevaluationorto meetquotas.Forthisreason,such
falloutsidethescopeofthisarticle.
patronizing
standards
Theyare worthinvestigating,
however,because depriving the lower-status
actorof a truthful
appraisalis yet
anotherpracticethroughwhichthe statusquo can be
maintained.For discussionsof thisand othertypesof
morelenientstandards
forthe lower-status
person,see,
for example, Blalock (1979: chap. 4) and Epstein
(1970:978).
240
DOUBLE STANDARDS
241
forthisstudy.The
motives),sta- researchor werepretested
example,fromself-enhancing
were seated individually
at
factorunder two participants
tusis assumedto be thestronger
the specified scope conditions(also see adjacent stations equipped with personal
computers
said tobe linkedto eachother.The
Foschiet al. 1994). Thus:
Hypothesis2. (Role). The process de- stationswere separatedby a partitionand
scribedin Hypothesis1 will occur whether subjectswereprecludedfrombothseeingand
occupytherole talkingwith each other.The experimenter
theactorsunderconsideration
dyads. statedthatthe purposeof the studywas to
of selfor of otherin theirrespective
will investigate
on a "contrast
performance
sensiIn otherwords,thefemaleperformer
be assessedby herselfas well as by hermale tivity"task in two simulatedworkenvironabilitystandardthan ments: an individualand a team setting.
partnerwitha stricter
Conversely,the Subjectswere informed
thatonly the memwill her male counterpart.
willbe assessedbyhimselfas bers of the researchstaffwould see their
maleperformer
well as by his femalepartnerwitha more individualresponses,and that theirnames
wouldbe keptconfidential.
Instructions
were
lenientabilitystandard.
wordedso as to motivateparticipants
to do
well (i.e., to be "task-oriented").
Each team
METHOD
thatits two memberswere of
was informed
at theuniversity
thesameyearandfaculty
but
Subjectsand Experimenters
of different
sex. Contrastsensitivitywas
discoveredabilityand
Subjectswere72 men and 72 women,all describedas a recently
fromthefaculties(schools)of of highpotentialvalue to a varietyof tasks.
undergraduates
of British Reliableresearchwas said to haveshownitto
Artsand Science at theUniversity
Columbia. Average ages (with standard be mainlyintuitiveand relativelyspecific.
deviationsin brackets)were 18.58 [0.96] for Thus the subjectsheard that "althoughno
the men and 18.80 [1.11] for the women. significantrelationshiphas so far been
and each person establishedbetweenit and attributes
such as
was voluntary
Participation
was paid $8 for the session. A pool of mathematicalskill or artisticability,men
in large have been foundto be generallyfar more
subjectswas obtainedby recruiting
classes; thosestudents accurate than women at solving contrast
first-and second-year
beyond sensitivity
problems."
who had takencoursesin psychology
task consistsof
an introductory
level and/orwho had partici- The contrastsensitivity
were severaltrials.On each trial,subjectsview a
experiments
patedin social psychology
area coveredto about the same
rectangular
excludedas prospective
subjects.
was teamedwithanother extentby smallerrectanglesof two different
Each participant
of theoppositesex, and teamswereassigned colors.Subjectsmustdecidewhichofthetwo
in the overallpattern.
at randomto one of threeconditions:(1) colors is predominant
higherscoreforselfthanforother;(2) higher The taskis actuallyambiguousto allow for
of acceptance/rejection
of
scoreforotherthanforself;or (3) no score the measurement
thathas
foreitherperson.The studythuswas a 2 (sex influence.It is a reliableinstrument
of subject and partner)x 3 (feedback been used extensivelyin expectationstates
condition)design,with24 subjectsper cell. studies.
A computerized
versiondevelopedexplicEach sessionwas conductedby one of two
female researchassistantsof similar age. itlyforthepresentworkwas used here.Brief
forthetaskas well as thevisual
Special attentionwas paid to maintaining instructions
of appearanceand deliveryof stimulithemselveswere presentedon the
uniformity
acrosssessions.
screen.The stimuliwerewhiteand red on a
instructions
black background.The computerprogram
gave the subject10 secondsto look at each
Proceduresand Materials
himor herfora response,
pattern,
prompted
For comparability,procedures were a and, afterfive seconds, showed the next
variant of the standardizedexperimentalpattern.Subjectswereassuredthat,although
therewas alwaysa
situationdeveloped for expectationstates thetaskappeareddifficult,
of theconresearch(Bergeret al. 1977:43-48). Instruc- correctanswer.Computerization
taskoffersmanyadvantages,
eitherwere adapted trastsensitivity
tionsand questionnaires
used in previous including(1) eliminatingthe possibilityof
fromreliable instruments
242
in communicatingquestionaboutit wouldfollowlogically(and
errorby the experimenter
fromthepreviousquesfeedbackto thesubjects,record- quiteunobtrusively)
prearranged
influence tionon scores.6
ing theirresponses,and computing
Duringthesecondseriesof trials,thetwo
rates, and (2) more controlby the experito workas a team
time for each subjectswere instructed
menterover the presentation
patternas well as over the time elapsed and to tryto arriveat a correctchoicein each
It also enhancesthecredi- trial. The intentionof thus creating a
betweenpatterns.
in eachpersonwas to
bilityofthecoverstoryandresultsin a highly "collectiveorientation"
make him or her assess the relativecompeengagingtask.
appearsin tencesof self and other.Subjectswere told
An overviewof theexperiment
Table 1. Duringthe firstpartof the study, thata team would be awardedtwo points
participants in the experimental conditions wheneverbothpersonswere correct.As an
forteamwork,
each of thesix
on the addedincentive
(4)) workedindividually
((1) through
task and made decisionson 20 patterns.At teamswiththemostpointswouldwin a $20
theend of thisseries,thescoresobtainedby prize.
For consistencywith other expectation
the two persons (trial by trial as well as
states
witha similardesign,the
experiments
overall)appearedon bothcomputerscreens.
taskvariedslightly
sensitivity
during
They showed either11 correctanswersby contrast
It
this
now
involved
two
phase.
patterns
per
self and 13 by the partner,or the reverse.
had
10
trial;
subjects
seconds
to
decide
which
Next, each person received a printoutof
areas containedmore
thesescores.Theneach subjectcompleteda of the two rectangular
writtenquestionnairethat included several white.The same abilityas in thefirstphase
checksand a measureof his or was said to be involved.Aftera subjectmade
manipulation
a
the partner's "choice" was
her own standardsfor the higher-scoring decision,
relayed.The feedbackwas manipulatedto
have contrastsensitivperson"to definitely
resultin 20 disagreements
and five agreeityability."
mentson theinitialchoices.Each subjectthen
I chose thescoresof 11 and 13 to indicate
made his or her own finalselection.In the
an equallyaveragelevel of success by both
disagreement
trials,this entailedeitherrepersons,for the reasons presentedearlier. mainingwithself's initialchoiceor changing
Such a level also has the advantage of it to agree with the partner's.The former
givingsubjectsa widerrangeof choicesfor decisionis referred
to as an s-response.The
settingtheirown abilitystandardthanwould proportion
of s-responsesoperationalizes
ina more definitesuccess. The latter, in fluencerejection,a variablewhich,in this
by the setting,is associatedreliablywithperceived
addition,could have been interpreted
subjects as implicitlyinformingthem of competencein selfand in other.
whatthatstandardshouldbe. On the other
At the conclusionof this series,subjects
hand, because reportingthat both persons completeda second questionnairethat inreceived exactly the same scores would cluded further
checksand one
manipulation
likelyhave createdsuspicion,thetwo scores additionalmeasureof relativecompetence.
weremade to differslightly.This difference This instrument
also served to assess any
also focuses attentionon the betterper- misunderstandings
and/orsuspicionsregardthe factthat,forthis ing the procedures.Next, subjects were
formerand highlights
eithera interviewed
person,outcomeand sex represent
to check further
on
individually
combination. theseissues,and thenweredebriefed.
consistentor an inconsistent
As discussedearlier,degreeof consistency The controlconditions
((5) and(6) inTable
is assumed to contributeto the use of a 1) excludedtheindividual
performance
phase
doublestandard.
andthecorresponding
scores.Becausedouble
One item in the questionnaire
prompted
subjectsto recordbothscores; the immedi- 6 If subjectshad been askedto set an abilitystandard
atelyfollowingitemaskedthemto statetheir foreach of two personswithcloselymatchingscores,
own abilitystandard
forthebetterperformer,theyprobablywouldhave producedmechanicalanswers
thesamestandard
forboth.On theotherhand,
of correctanswersrequired.I indicating
as a percentage
thesmalldegreeof difference
betweenthesescoresdid
assumedthat,giventhe scoresreceived,the not justifyasking for standards
for ability in one
subjectswould most likelyactivateand be performer
and for standardsfor lack of abilityin the
concerned with this standard. Also, the other.
DOUBLE STANDARDS
243
Part1
Manipulation
Phase
Scores
Receivedby
Condition
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sex of
Subject
M
F
M
F
M
F
Sex of
Partner
F
M
F
M
F
Subject
Partner
(Maximum:20)
11
11
13
13
Standards
forAbility
in HigherScoring
Person
Perceived
Competence
in Subject
and in Partner
13
13
11
11
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
244
SD
Other
72.50
7.03
22
(2) Femalesubject
scoringworsethan
male partner
23
Other
66.39
11.24
21
Self
69.86
6.81
(4) Femalesubject
Scoringbetterthan
male partner
20
Self
74.50
8.09
245
DOUBLE STANDARDS
1: PerceivedCompetencein Self and in Partner
Table 3. Experiment
Condition
(as perTable 1)
Self's
Ability
Relativeto
Partner's
Rejectionof
Influence
fromPartner
N
SD
SD
22
.516
.103
2.57
.791
(2) Femalesubject
scoringworsethan
malepartner
23
.437
.109
2.13
.548
21
.624
.129
3.10
.301
(4) Femalesubject
scoringbetterthan
male partner
20
.558
.122
3.00
.324
21
.655
.089
3.17
.577
(6) Femalesubject
and malepartner,
no scores
22
.473
.102
2.18
.501
246
DOUBLE STANDARDS
247
248
Part1
Phase
Manipulation
Scores
Receivedby
Condition
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Sex of
Subject
M
F
M
F
Sex of
Partner
F
M
F
M
Subject
Partner
(Maximum:20)
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
Standards
forAbility
in HigherLevel of
Scoring
Person
Accountability
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Perceived
Competence
in Subject
and in Partner
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DOUBLE STANDARDS
249
Manipulationchecks on this variablewere all subjectsrecalled exactlythe scores reand the ceived by themselvesand by theirpartner,
includedin thesecondquestionnaire
interview.
thesex of thelatter.
and correctly
identified
Finally,one 5-pointbipolarscale servedas a
manipulationcheck of accountability,
asRESULTS
sessed in termsof perceivedlevel of privacy
obtained of the situation.This itemread as follows:
An analysisof the information
instruments"Consideringwho will have access to your
throughthe postexperimental
resultedin theexclusionof 11 subjects(five responses(e.g., partner,researchassistant,
men and six women),or 11.5% of thetotal otherresearchers),rate how private(1)numberof participants.
The same rejection public (5) you perceivedtheseresponsesto
rules as in Experiment1 were applied,and be." Means and standarddeviationsforthe
theresulting
exclusionrateis similarto that low-accountability
groupswere as follows:
oftheearlierstudy.The reasonsforexclusion Condition(1) (male subjects):2.17 [1.10];
were as follows:suspicion(threesubjects), Condition(2) (femalesubjects):1.98 [0.76].
(foursub- Values forthemedium-accountability
misunderstanding
the instructions
groups
and/or were: Condition(3) (male subjects): 2.88
jects), and lack of task orientation
collectiveorientation(five subjects). (One [1.20]; Condition(4) (femalesubjects):3.13
person was classified in two of these [1.14]. As expected,ANOVA resultsshowa
maineffectfromthismanipulation
categories.)The followinganalysisincludes significant
= 2.08, M (medium
(M (low accountability)
onlythe85 retainedsubjects.
accountability)= 3.00, F (1, 81) = 24.46, p
= .000), whereasneitherthe main effect
Manipulation Checks
fromsex of subject nor the interaction
is
As in Experiment
1, thepostexperimentalsignificant.Simple contrastsindicate that
about the accountability
level madea significant
differquestionnaire
yieldedinformation
of thetask. Means and ence formen (F (1, 81) = 7.21, p = .009) as
subjects'perceptions
standarddeviationson these itemswere as well as forwomen(F (1,81) = 18.50, p =
follows: creative (1)-routine (5): 2.85 .000). In other words, subjects in the
[1.15]; important
(1)-unimportant(5): 2.87 low-accountability
groupsperceivedthecon[1.06]; easy (1)-difficult (5): 3.51 [1.18]; text of the studyto be significantly
more
intuitive(1)-learned (5): 2.31 [1.13]; and private than did those in the mediummasculine(1)-feminine (5): 2.85 [0.76]. accountability
groups.
Subjects' dispositionstowardthe task were
also assessedas in theearlierstudy.Averages
DependentVariables
and standarddeviationson these measureAs in Study1, I beginby examiningthe
mentswere:interested
(1)-uninterested(5):
2.40 [1.10]; motivated
(1)-unmotivated(5): resultson standardsfor the higher-scoring
2.45 [1.06]; and involved(1)-uninvolved person, shown in Table 5. As expected,
main effect
(5): 2.23 [1.00]. As expected,ANOVA for ANOVA indicatesa significant
of standards(M (male
each of these eight variables showed no fromsex of referent
statisticallysignificanteffectsfrom either referent)= 66.77, M (femalereferent)=
In 71.98, F (1, 81) = 7.19, p = .009), whereas
typeof dyad or level of accountability.
1 in neitheraccountability
nor the interaction
is
addition,a comparisonwithExperiment
Sex of referent
theserespectsshows a close overall corre- significant.
had a significant
was low (F
spondencebetweenthetwo sets of findings. effectonly when accountability
(The only noticeabledifferenceoccurs on (1, 81) = 5.16, p = .026).
in selfandinpartner
Perceivedcompetence
perceiveddifficulty;
subjectsin this study
thanthosein was measuredprimarily
assessedthetaskas less difficult
through
rejectionof
Experiment1. I do not attachany special influence.As Table 6 shows, men rejected
to thisdifference,
however,given more influencefromthe partnerthan did
importance
betweenthe women.ANOVA indicates,as expected,that
(1) the highlevel of similarity
two studiesin all otherrespectsand (2) the the main effectfromsex of subject was
factthatin bothexperiments,
subjectsnone- significant(M (male subject) = .543, M
thelessperceivedthetaskto be difficult.)
(female subject) = .452, F (1,81)) = 9.68, p
resultsalso showthat = .003), whereasthe effectsfromeither
The postexperimental
250
Person(in Percentages)
2: StandardsforAbilityin theHigher-Scoring
Table 5. Experiment
Sex
of Referent
of Standards
Level of
Accountability
Condition
(as perTable 4)
21
Low
72.14
9.02
21
Low
65.86
10.58
22
Medium
71.82
6.08
21
Medium
67.67
9.67
SD
femalepartner
(2) Femalesubject
scoring worse than
malepartner
femalepartner
(4) Femalesubject
scoring worse than
malepartner
Condition
(as perTable 4)
Self's
Ability
Relativeto
Partner's
Rejectionof
Influence
fromPartner
SD
SD
21
.552
.156
2.52
.602
(2) Femalesubject
scoringworsethan
malepartner,
low
accountability
21
.429
.146
2.24
.436
22
.534
.108
2.27
.550
(4) Femalesubject
scoringworsethan
malepartner,
medium
accountability
21
.474
.131
2.00
5.48
DOUBLE STANDARDS
DISCUSSION
251
252
intheamountandintensity
told thattheywere equal to the partneror genderdifferences
These features
of of work-related
stressthey experience.In
weregivenno information.
the situationcreateoptimumconditionsfor futureresearch, it would be useful to
linksbetweeninterpersonal
double
genderto become a salientvariable.In the investigate
of sex standardsand processes conceptualizedat
investigation
future,a morethorough
effectscould be achievedby studyingcon- otherlevels of analysis,fromindividualto
and macrostructural.
of organizational
textsin whichselfis pairedwitha partner
double standardsis also
eitherthe same or the oppositesex. Useful
Understanding
information
also could be obtained from important
forreasonsotherthantheirtheoretinwhichsex ofpartner
is unknown ical significance.For example, suppose it
conditions
thatmembers
ofa
because these conditionswould serve to becomeswidelyrecognized
address questionsabout the source of the social categoryare, or have been,commonly
double standard:do men set strictstandards disadvantagedin settingsinvolvingevaluathrough
theuse of a stricter
forwomen,do womenset lenientstandards tion,particularly
abilitystandard.How can this situationbe
formen,or do bothpracticesoccur?
on reversed?This is exactlythe questionthat
These studiesprovidekey information
actionprogramsaddress.Simply
the operationof double standards.Thereis, affirmative
an explicitlymore lenientstanhowever,stillmuchworkto do to understand introducing
this practice. For example, it would be dardforone categoryin orderto makeup for
worthwhileto study its occurrenceunder past wrongs is not the answer. Such an
of lesser
othervalues of sex linkageof task(particu- approachwouldlead to an inference
larlythe"feminine"task)and otherlevelsof abilityamongmembers
of thatcategory;this,
It would also be of interest
to in turn, would perpetuatethe inequality.
performance.
action programs
test whethergender-baseddouble standards Well-designedaffirmative
forlack of abilityconstitute
anotherstatus- arenotbasedon theimplementation
ofsucha
maintenance
practice.Finally,I shouldem- "reverse double standard." Instead they
phasize that the theorybehind this work includedemonstrations
ofabilitythatleaveno
concernsnot only gender but any status doibts about the superiorquality of the
to test chosenapplicants.
attribute.
Thus it wouldbe important
thetheoryin othercases, involvinga single
statuscharacteristic
as well as several.After
REFERENCES
situations
it is common
all, in manyeveryday
to be affectedby more than one status Berger,Joseph,M. HamitFisek,RobertZ. Norman,and
and
variable. Women, for example, experience MorrisZelditchJr. 1977. StatusCharacteristics
lowerstatusand itsconsequencesto different Social Interaction.An ExpectationStatesApproach.
New York:Elsevier.
on thecombinedeffects
of Berger,
degreesdepending
Joseph,David G. Wagner,and MorrisZelditch
especiallyethnic- Jr.1985. "Introduction:
genderand otherattributes,
ExpectationStatesTheoryity, age, social class, and level of formal ReviewandAssessment."Pp.1-72 in Status,Rewards
and Influence:How Expectations
OrganizeBehavior,
education.
editedby JosephBergerand MorrisZelditchJr.San
HereI haveexaminedaspectsof theuse of
Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
gender-baseddouble standardsfor compe- Biernat,Monica and Melvin Manis. 1994. "Shifting
level. As discussed Standardsand Stereotype-Based
tenceat theinterpersonal
Judgments."
Journal
earlier,competencestandardsare basically ofPersonalityand Social Psychology66:5-20.
imposedon a person'sperfor- Biernat,Monica,MelvinManis,andThomasE. Nelson.
requirements
1991. "Stereotypesand Standardsof Judgment."
mance.Whendifferent
standardsare applied JournalofPersonalityand Social
Psychology
60:485of
to different
categories people,thatpractice 99.
to themaintenance
of theinterac- Blalock, HubertM. 1979. Black-White
contributes
Relationsin the
tional statusquo. It would be surprising, 1980's: Toward a Long-TermPolicy. New York:
Praeger.
however,iftheconsequencesof thispractice Deaux,
Kay. 1985. "Sex andGender."AnnualReviewof
were limitedto its directeffecton interper- Psychology36:49-81.
sonal assignmentof competence.I suspect Deschamps,Jean-Claude.1983. "Social Attribution."
Pp. 223-40 in Attribution
Theoryand Research:
thatdouble standardsalso are at therootof
Conceptual,Developmentaland Social Dimensions,
several other importantphenomena.Two
editedby JosJaspars,FrankD. Fincham,and Miles
in requirements Hewstone.
ofdifferences
possibleeffects
London:AcademicPress.
are the gap in earningsbetweenmen and Epstein, CynthiaF. 1970. "Encounteringthe Male
women with equal qualifications,and the
Establishment:Sex-Status Limits on Women's
DOUBLE STANDARDS
Careers in the Professions."AmericanJournalof
Sociology75:965-82.
Foddy,Margaretand Michael Smithson.1989. "Fuzzy
Sets and Double Standards:Modelingthe Processof
AbilityInference."Pp. 73-99 in SociologicalTheories
in Progress: New Formulations,edited by Joseph
Berger, Morris Zelditch Jr., and Bo Anderson.
NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
StanFoschi, Martha. 1989. "Status Characteristics,
dards,and Attributions."
Pp. 58-72 in Sociological
Theoriesin Progress:New Formulations,editedby
JosephBerger,MorrisZelditchJr.,and Bo Anderson.
NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
. 1992.
Standards for
253
254
ofBritishColumbia.Her researchinterests
MarthaFoschi is Professorof Sociologyat the University
as sourcesofbiases in abilityevaluation.
on genderand ethnicity
focuson statusprocesses,particularly
she has recentlycarriedout on
The two studiesreportedhere are part of a series of experiments
gender-based
doublestandards
for competence.