Gender, evaluation, and causal attribution: The double standard is alive and well

Abstract

Brief behavioral descriptions were empirically judged to be stereotypically “male” or “female,” and evaluated as “good” or “bad.” Male and female subjects made causal attributions for these behaviors when performed either by sex-role-congruent or by sex-role-violating actors. Attribution patterns displayed an apparent “double standard,” in which different criteria were applied to male and to female actors. For male actors, role violations elicited more personal causal attribution than role-congruent behaviors, regardless of the behavior's goodness or badness. For female actors, bad behaviors elicited more personal causal attribution than good behaviors, and role appropriateness was irrelevant. None of these differences in attribution patterns can be accounted for by evaluations of the behaviors themselves. The possibility that this procedure may circumvent social desirability biases in revealing subjects' sex-role stereotypes is discussed.