Monica Biernat

Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups.

Stereotypes may influence judgment via assimilation, such that individual group members are evaluated consistently with stereotypes, or via contrast, such that targets are displaced from the overall group expectation. Two models of judgment--the shifting standards model and status characteristics theory--provide some insight into predicting and interpreting these apparently contradictory effects. In 2 studies involving a simulated applicant-evaluation setting, we predicted and found that participants set lower minimum-competency standards, but higher ability standards, for female than for male and for Black than for White applicants. Thus, although it may be easier for low- than high-status group members to meet (low) standards, these same people must work harder to prove that their performance is ability based.

Toward a Broader View of Social Stereotyping.

Stereotyping effects are typically considered to be assimilative in nature: A member of a group stereotyped as having some attribute is judged to have more of that attribute than a member of some comparison group. This article highlights the fact that stereotyping effects can also occur in the direction of contrast--or even null effects-- depending on the nature and form of the outcome being assessed (from the researchers perspective, the dependent variable of interest). Relying on theory and research from the shifting standards model (M. Biernat, M. Manis, & T. F. Nelson, 1991), this review highlights the different ways in which and the factors that determine how stereotypes influence judgment and behavior toward individual group members.

Shifting Standards and the Evaluation of Competence: Complexity in Gender-Based Judgment and Decision Making

Gender stereotypes regarding task competence may lead perceivers to set different standards for diagnosing competence in women versus men. Specifically, stereotypes may prompt lower minimum standards (or initial screening criteria) but higher confirmatory standards for women than men (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997). In two studies simulating hiring decisions, predictions were that women would be (1) more likely than men to make a short list for a job but (2) less likely than men to be hired for the same job. Results were generally consistent with predictions only among female participants (Studies 1 and 2), among those exposed to a female experimenter (Study 1), and among those held accountable for their decisions (Study 2). The role of motivational factors in the setting of standards is discussed.

Derogating black sheep: Individual or group protection?

What motivates people to derogate unfavorable ingroup members more harshly than comparably unfavorable outgroup members? Researchers investigating the black sheep effect maintain that this differential derogation is a means of group protection. In contrast, we argue that derogating unfavorable ingroup members may be an individual protection strategy whereby target devaluation distances an unfavorable other from the self as a means of limiting the threat of being associatively miscast. Participants read an article describing an unfavorable ingroup or outgroup target, and then received two means of responding to the target: target devaluation and group disidentification. Importantly, group disidentification was considered to be a uniquely individualistic distancing strategy. We found that both response options substituted for one another, depending on the order of presentation. Substitutability, we argue, suggests that the primary motive behind ingroup derogation in our study was distance augmentation, an individual protection strategy.

Intergroup Anxiety: A Person × Situation Approach

A person × situation approach to the study of intergroup anxiety is offered in which anxiety in intergroup encounters is viewed as a transaction between the individual and the environment. An individual difference measure of intergroup anxiety toward African Americans is developed, and studies assessing the scales reliability and validity are presented. The utility of a person × situation approach is shown in an experiment in which participants high or low in intergroup anxiety were told they would interact with either a European American or an African American. Participants high in intergroup anxiety who were supposed to interact with an African American evidenced the highest state anxiety, perceived the interaction as most difficult, and viewed their partners as most dissimilar from themselves. Issues surrounding sources of intergroup anxiety and the relationship between intergroup anxiety and prejudice are discussed.

Coping with Role Overload

In this chapter we highlight findings from a program of research on coping with role strain and role conflict. Earlier research from our laboratory has focused primarily on how people deal with stressful life events such as physical disability (e.g., Bulman & Wortman, 1977) or the loss of a loved one (see, e.g., Lehman, Wortman, & Williams, 1987). Long-term goals of this research program include elaborating the theoretical mechanisms through which stress has deleterious effects on subsequent health and functioning (see Silver & Wortman, 1980, or Kessler, Price, & Wort-man, 1985, for reviews).

She Swings, She Hits, She’s Great, She’s Benched: Implications of Gender-Based Shifting Standards for Judgment and Behavior

The implications of the shifting standards model for understanding behavior toward stereotyped groups were examined in two studies on gender and athleticism. Participants played the role of co-ed softball team managers, who made team selections, position assignments, and judgments about a series of male and female players. The data supported three hypotheses: (a) Stereotypes of male superiority as athletes lead to the use of shifting standards to judge athletic performance; (b) zero-sum behaviors (allocation of limited resources) show evidence of pro-male bias, whereas non-zero-sum behaviors (verbal and nonverbal reactions) show evidence of pro-female bias; and (c) objective judgments are somewhat better predictors of zero-sum behaviors, whereas subjective judgments are better predictors of non-zerosum behaviors.

STRESS, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND HEALTH IN MARRIED PROFESSIONAL WOMEN WITH SMALL CHILDREN

Two hundred married professional women with small children were surveyed to investigate what types of occupational and role-conflict stresses are associated with physical and depressive symptoms, and whether social support could protect individuals from the negative health effects of stress. Six stress indices predicted physical and depressive symptoms, both concurrently and 1 year later. These stresses reflected perceptions of lack of authority and influence on the job, sex discrimination, a heavy work load, work imposing on relaxation, family imposing on relaxation, and overall suffering from role conflict. Social support yielded no stress-buffering effects.

Motivated Shifting of Justice Standards

Three studies test whether group members strategically shift the standard of judgment they use to decide whether a particular ingroup action was unjust. In Study 1, individuals who were highly identified with their ingroup set higher confirmatory injustice standards than low identifiers—they needed more evidence to conclude that their group acted unjustly. This led to reductions in judgments of harm and diminished collective guilt. In Study 2, group identification was experimentally manipulated and the results of Study 1 were replicated. In Study 3, stronger support is provided for the motivational nature of this process. Specifically, the motivation to shift the standard upward was decreased by providing group members with an opportunity to self-affirm at the group level. Participants who self-affirmed set lower confirmatory standards of injustice, rated the harm as more severe, and experienced greater collective guilt than, those not self-affirming. Implications of this quantitative standard shifting are discussed.

Black sheep and expectancy violation: integrating two models of social judgment

A study of race-based ingroup and outgroup judgment demonstrates the links between two models of social judgment—the ‘black sheep’ effect (Marques, Yzerbyt & Leyens, 1988) and expectancy-violation theory (Jussim, Coleman & Lerch, 1987). White participants had a live interaction with a Black or White partner who contributed to a team success or failure at a game. Partner judgments, perceived expectancy violation, and mood changes indicated a pattern of ingroup polarization, though the race differential was reliable only when targets performed poorly. Consistent with other research, this pattern was most striking among Whites who were highly identified with their racial group. We suggest that racial identification activates favorable within-group judgment standards which, when violated, produce mood decrements and negative evaluations. Copyright