USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The impact of gender-role stereotypes and the sex-typing of the professor job on performance evaluations in higher education

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The impact of gender-role stereotypes and the sex-typing of the professor job on performance evaluations in higher education
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Dorio, Jay M
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Discrimination
Gender-role
Congruity
Glass-ceiling
Gender ideology
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The present study examined the influences of gender-role stereotypes, gender-role congruity, and the sex-typing of the professor job on performance evaluations of university educators in actual classroom settings. Participants used the Schein Descriptive Index (Schein, 1973) to define gender-role stereotypes, characteristics of their professor/instructor, and the characteristics of an "Effective Professor." Participants used a behavior summary scale (BSS) formatted student assessment of instruction to evaluate their professors/instructors performance after a full semester of class participation. It was hypothesized that a pro-male bias would exist in the sex-typing of the professor job, and that combined with the gender-role stereotypes of participants and the gender-role congruity of professors/instructors, would influence performance evaluations.In support of hypothesized relationships, results demonstrated that male and female participants hold different gender-role stereotypes of Men and Women, that the professor job is sex-typed in favor of men for male participants, and that gender-role stereotypes and the gender-role congruity of actual professors/instructors can influence performance evaluation ratings. Contrary to previous research and hypothesized relationships, the sex-typing of the professor job was not significantly related to performance evaluation scores. Additionally, results of regression analyses revealed no gender differences in performance evaluation ratings; however, age differences were found, in favor of older professors/instructors. Possible explanations for obtained results, as well as study limitations, are discussed.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jay M. Dorio.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 120 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001709506
oclc - 68621379
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001340
usfldc handle - e14.1340
System ID:
SFS0025661:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

The Impact of Gender-Role Stereotypes and the Sex-Typing of the Professor Job on Performance Evaluations in Higher Education by Jay M. Dorio A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Michael T. Brannick, Ph.D. Joseph A. Vandello, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October, 5 2005 Keywords: discrimination, gender-role, congruity, glass-ceiling, gender ideology Copyright 2005, Jay M. Dorio

PAGE 2

Dedication To my wife Erika: thank you for being you, for everything you have done and continue to do…and especially for our little peanut.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments Drs. Walter C. Borman, Michael T. Brannick, and Joseph A. Vandello for their consideration and effort in teaching me the things I need to know and for helping me develop as a researcher; Dr. Tammy Allen for her guidance and encouragement; and Dr. Barbara Fritzsche for helping me get started. Thank you to the prestigious faculty, outstanding staff, and my amazing colleagues at the University of South Florida. It is truly an honor to share these halls with you. Thank you to the best cohort I could have imagined; your continuing ingenuity, drive, and passion for our field is truly inspirational. A special thank you to Rebecca H. Klein and Adam C. Bandelli for their friendship, support, and critical-analysis skills. Thank you to my family, both near and far, for their never-ending honesty, encouragement, support, and love. Finally, a special thank you to my wife Erika, for stepping on me fourteen years ago, for her never-ending encouragement, and for always keeping me on my toes.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. iii Abstract....................................................................................................................... ...iv Introduction................................................................................................................... ..1 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination..........................................................4 Gender-Role Stereotypes......................................................................................6 Social Role Theory..............................................................................................7 Sex-Typing of Jobs............................................................................................10 Research Examining the Sex-Typing of the Professor Job.......................10 Research Examining the Sex-Typing of Leadership Jobs........................10 Performance Evaluations....................................................................................13 Research Involving Performance Evaluations.........................................15 Hypotheses....................................................................................................................1 7 Method......................................................................................................................... .19 Participants........................................................................................................19 Part 1......................................................................................................19 Part 2......................................................................................................20 Part 3......................................................................................................20 “Effective Professor” Sample.................................................................20 Measures and Procedure.....................................................................................22 Preliminary Analyses.........................................................................................24 Results ....................................................................................................................... ...31 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 45 Limitations.........................................................................................................52 References..................................................................................................................... 55

PAGE 5

ii Appendixes....................................................................................................................6 7 Appendix A: Female Stereotypical Characteristics.............................................68 Appendix B: Female “Non-Stereotypical” Characteristics..................................69 Appendix C: Male Stereotypical Characteristics.................................................70 Appendix D: Male “Non-Stereotypical” Characteristics.....................................71 Appendix E: Actual Professor/Instructor Characteristics....................................72 Appendix F: “Effective Professor” Stereotypical Characteristics........................74 Appendix G: Gender-Role Stereotype Survey....................................................75 Appendix H: Individual Prof essor/Instruct or Survey..........................................83 Appendix I: University Student Assessment of Instruction.................................88 Appendix J: Psychology Department Student Assessment of Instruction............90 Appendix K: Web-Based “Eff ective Professo r” Surv ey.................................... 101 Appendix L: Web-Based Performance Ev aluati on............................................ 108

PAGE 6

iii List of Tables Table 1 Demographic Information............................................................................21 Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations: Average Participants Ratings and Average Ratings of Targets of Interest......................................25 Table 3 Within-Class Differences in Performance Evaluation Ratings ......................28 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for each Predictor and the Dependent Variable ............30 Table 5 Individual Participant Sex-Typing: Average of Individual Participant Correlations..................................................................................................33 Table 6 Mean Item Ratings of “Non-Stereotypical” Characteristics of Women as Described by Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, and Rosenkrant z (1972 )................................................................................ 34 Table 7 Correlations: Ratings of Professors/Instructors and Ratings of an Effective Professor.......................................................................................35 Table 8 Multiple Hierarchical Regression Results – Hypothesis 5.............................36 Table 9 Moderated Hierarchical Regression Results – Hypothesis 6..........................38 Table 10 Multiple Hierarchical Regression Results – Hypothesis 7.............................40 Table 11 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Regression Analyses.......................................................................................................42 Table 12 Correlations between Professor/Instructor Gender, Age, and Performance Evaluations..............................................................................44

PAGE 7

iv The Impact of Gender-Role Stereotypes and the Sex-Typing of the Professor Job on Performance Evaluations in Higher Education Jay M. Dorio ABSTRACT The present study examined the influences of gender-role stereotypes, gender-role congruity, and the sex-typing of the professor job on performance evaluations of university educators in actual classroom settings. Participants used the Schein Descriptive Index (Schein, 1973) to define gender-role stereotypes, characteristics of their professor/instructor, and the characteristics of an “Effective Professor.” Participants used a behavior summary scale (BSS) formatted student assessment of instruction to evaluate their professor’s/instructor’s performance after a full semester of class participation. It was hypothesized that a pro-male bias would exist in the sex-typing of the professor job, and that combined with the gender-role stereotypes of participants and the gender-role congruity of professors/instructors, would influence performance evaluations. In support of hypothesized relationships, results demonstrated that male and female participants hold different gender-role stereotypes of “Men” and “Women,” that the professor job is sex-typed in favor of men for male participants, and that gender-role stereotypes and the gender-role congruity of actual professors/instructors can influence performance evaluation ratings.

PAGE 8

v Contrary to previous research and hypothesized relationships, the sex-typing of the professor job was not significantly related to performance evaluation scores. Additionally, results of regression analyses revealed no gender differences in performance evaluation ratings; however, age differences were found, in favor of older professors/instructors. Possible explanations for obtained results, as well as study limitations, are discussed.

PAGE 9

1 Introduction Most large organizations were founded decades ago by a relatively homogenous group of people. These “founding fathers” contributed their own cultural biases and values when they created the rules, policies, and practices of their organizations. In most cases, these original rules, policies, and practices have been modified very little to account for the enormous influx of diversity into the workplace, resulting in reduced opportunities for those in minority groups (Cox, 1993). Performance evaluations, among the most commonly used criteria in industrial and organizational psychology (Landy & Farr, 1980; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995) are employed by almost every organization and serve a multitude of purposes, including providing feedback, aiding in promotional and personnel decisions, and increasing communication. Because performance evaluations usually involve a relatively unstructured and subjective appraisal of individual performance (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005), it is certainly possible that women and minorities might be evaluated less favorably than their performance warrants. A possible exemplar of this process, the “boy’s club” of higher education institutions, has received relatively little empirical investigation in this area (e.g., Dobbins, Cardy, & Truxillo, 1988), but data largely support a discrepancy between majority and minority populations. The current study investigated this discrepancy by examining the underlying processes that may affect performance evaluations and either

PAGE 10

2 directly or indirectly contribute to the gap between majority and minority populations. Specifically, do the gender-role stereotypes held by raters combine with the sex-typing of the professor job to influence performance evaluations of professors/instructors who are evaluated as either gender-role incongruent (those who are evaluated as not possessing the level of stereotypical characteristics someone of their gender “should”) or professorrole incongruent (those who are evaluated as not possessing the level of stereotypical characteristics a professor “should”)? In our increasingly diverse workplace, it is critically important to study the combined effects of gender-role stereotypes and the sex-typing of jobs on perceptions of employees, and ultimately on employment outcomes. Research illustrates that although women occupy an increasing number of postsecondary faculty positions, they occupy lower-level positions, are paid less, are less likely to be tenured, and are less likely to receive promotions than their similarly qualified male colleagues. For example, although in 2001 women occupied more than 38% of postsecondary faculty positions, there existed a paucity of women in upper-level positions. Women occupied only 23% of full professor and 37% of associate professor positions, as compared to 45% of assistant professor positions, 50.6% of instructors, and 53% of lecturers (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Data also illustrate that female pay rates lag significantly behind their male counterparts at all levels of instruction. Female educators consistently make between 74% and 94% of what their male colleagues do (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 2000; U. S. Department of Education, 2002). Although it has been argued that the disparity between male and female salaries is decreasing, data from all levels of instruction refute this claim.

PAGE 11

3 In 1972, the average female full professor earned 88% of what the average male full professor earned ($17,123 vs. $19,414), and the average female associate and assistant professors earned 94% of what their male colleagues earned ($13,827 vs. $14,723 and $11,510 vs. $12,193). Almost thirty years later, the proportional difference between male and female salaries has changed very little. In 1999, the average female full professor still earned only 88% of what the average male full professor earned ($67,079 vs. $76,478), and the average female associate and assistant professors earned proportionately less than their counterparts from 1972, earning only 93% of what their male colleagues earned ($52,091 vs. $55,939 and $43,367 vs. $46,414; U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Tenure status, another key indicator of advancement in an academic career, further illustrates the inequity between male and female academicians. In 1998, male professors were almost one and a half times more likely to be tenured (59%) than their female counterparts (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). These percentages are consistent with those obtained six years earlier, in which male tenured professors (60.7%) outnumbered female tenured professors (U.S. Department of Education, 1992). Arguments have been made, such as “pipeline” theories (e.g., Forbes, Piercy, & Hayes, 1988), that the discrepancy between the number of men and women employed in certain jobs is due to a lack of qualified women for those jobs. Data from the U.S. Department of Education (1993, 1999) refute this claim as well. Although in 1992 women occupied 57% of tenure track positions, six years later, the percentage of women in tenured positions rose less than 1% to just 41%, demonstrating that although women

PAGE 12

4 are available for tenured positions, they are not being awarded tenure at the same rates as their male colleagues. Finally, research supports that women are less likely than their male colleagues to receive promotions to departmental chair positions or editorships of top journals. In 1992, men were more than twice as likely to occupy departmental chair positions (69%) as their female colleagues (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Additionally, according to an informal survey of fifteen of the top psychological and organizational behavior journals conducted by this author in 2005, only three (20%) have women serving as editor (Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Personnel Psychology). It is evident that despite their comparable qualifications, women are not able to enter upper-level positions at the same rate as men. Gender-role stereotypes and majority perceptions are possible reasons (Kawakami, White, & Langer, 2000). A key premise of the current research is that performance evaluations can be affected by the combined effects of gender-role stereotypes held by raters and the sex-typing of the professor job, thereby creating negative consequences for certain ratees. Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination A stereotype is a type of schema in which beliefs about the characteristics of a specific group are applied to an individual (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). Arvey (1979) suggests that the process of stereotyping first involves developing ideas about the characteristics of groups and then assigning those characteristics to individuals. This categorization is more likely to occur when limited information is available about the individual, or when the characteristics of the individual appear to resemble the

PAGE 13

5 characteristics assigned to the group (Fiske, Neuberg, Beattie, & Milberg, 1987). Furthermore, research suggests that when characteristics are especially salient (e.g., race, or gender), they are much more likely to cue category-based stereotypes (Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glass, 1992; Stephan, 1989). The danger of using stereotypes is that once an individual has been assigned to a category, future responses to that individual are likely to be based on the stereotype of the group they resemble (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Prejudice is an emotional reaction to an individual based on the stereotypes one holds of the group to which the individual belongs. Sexism, a form of prejudice, involves emotional reactions to individuals based on the stereotypes one holds of their gender. Sexism may include hostile sexism (negative feelings based on an individual’s gender), or benevolent sexism (a more protective form of sexism; Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001). Hostile sexism (e.g., a man feels he is better than a woman) is often directed at women who attempt to occupy roles that contradict gender-stereotyped roles (e.g., female executives). Benevolent sexism (e.g., women are more pure than men) on the other hand, is often directed at women who occupy stereotypically gender-defined roles (e.g., housewives; Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Warner, & Zhu, 1997). Discrimination involves the application of stereotypes and prejudices to treat people in an unequal manner (Fiske, 2004). Discrimination may be categorized as either access discrimination, in which an individual is denied an opportunity or a lesser opportunity is offered based on the individual’s gender, or treatment discrimination, which involves giving an individual reduced benefits or incentives based on the individual’s gender (Helgeson, 2002).

PAGE 14

6 Gender-Role Stereotypes A gender-role stereotype is a schema in which stereotypical beliefs about the characteristics and responsibilities of each gender are applied to individuals. Gender-role stereotypes can consist of role behaviors (e.g., men are aggressive), physical features (e.g., women are thin and slight), or occupations (e.g., men are carpenters; Helgeson, 2002). Gender-role stereotypes can also contain descriptive components, which describe actual differences between men and women, or prescriptive components, which describe how men and women “should” or “should not” be (Burgess & Borgida, 1999; Eagly, 1987; Terborg, 1977). Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, and Rosenkrantz (1972) demonstrated the existence of clearly defined gender-role stereotypes, in which women were perceived as less competent, independent, objective, and logical than men. Gender-role stereotypes have typically been summarized into three main gender ideologies: traditional, egalitarian, and transitional (Hochschild, 1989). Individuals who hold a traditional gender ideology assign greater power to men, clearly designating working and agentic behaviors as male responsibilities, while maintaining the home and communal behaviors are female responsibilities. On the other hand, an individual who holds an egalitarian gender ideology divides power and responsibilities equally. An individual who holds a transitional gender ideology combines aspects of the previous two ideologies and considers both men and women to be responsible for working but maintains that women are primarily responsible for the home and men are primarily responsible for working (Helgeson, 2002). According to social-cognitive theory, most individuals have well developed gender-role stereotypes (Bem, 1981; Del Boca, Ashmore, & McManus, 1986; Fishbein &

PAGE 15

7 Ajzen, 1975; Swim & Sanna, 1996). Individuals who employ gender-based stereotypes are more likely to evaluate and organize information based on the biological sex of individuals than those who do not use gender-based stereotypes (Dobbins et al., 1988). These “sex-typed” individuals will be more likely to bias their ratings in support of their gender-role stereotypes (e.g., DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984). Hochschild (1989) supports this argument, asserting that individuals who hold a traditional gender ideology maintain a pronatalist viewpoint (women are encouraged to engage in childbearing, but are discouraged from seeking alternate roles, such as finding employment) and would be more likely to describe women using gender-based stereotypes. Therefore, negative ramifications, including discrimination, may result when individuals use gender-role stereotypes to appraise and organize information in an evaluation setting. Conversely, since an individual who holds a traditional gender ideology may demonstrate a pro-male bias in his/her evaluations, positively biased ratings are also a possible consequence. Although there has been much discussion regarding the negative ramifications of holding certain gender-role stereotypes when conducting performance evaluations, there is a paucity of research directly examining this issue (e.g., Dobbins et al., 1988). To that end, the current study examined the effect of gender-role stereotypes on performance evaluations. Social Role Theory According to Eagly’s (1987) social-role theory, individuals are generally expected to engage in activities that fall within their culturally defined gender roles. Individuals who violate these social roles are likely to face negative consequences. Eagly and Karau

PAGE 16

8 (2002) proposed that this role incongruity may lead to the perception that women are less suited for certain jobs and therefore result in discrimination such that women will be evaluated as less effective in these jobs. As discussed earlier, the pronatalist view holds that the role of women is that of child bearer and rearer, and because, according to Blake (1969), most societies continue to hold pronatalist attitudes towards women, women who occupy gender inconsistent roles may produce a more severe violation of expected gender-role behaviors (Gutek & Cohen, 1987; Williams, 1989). Several studies have examined the existence of gender-role stereotypes in employment settings. Although most previous research has demonstrated differences in ratings based on ratee gender, few studies have directly assessed whether gender-role stereotypes are responsible for producing such effects (Dobbins et al., 1988). Studies of gender-role stereotypes usually focus on male and female leaders behaving in stereotypically masculine and feminine ways. Some research suggests that exhibiting stereotypically masculine behaviors could be an effective avenue for a leader. Hackman, Hillis, Paterson, and Furniss (1993) reported that women were seen as effective when displaying stereotypically masculine characteristics but not when they displayed stereotypically feminine characteristics. Others suggest that women can disconfirm gender stereotypes by engaging in masculine behaviors (Wiley & Eskilson, 1985). Conversely, research points out that women who engage in masculine behaviors will violate prescriptive aspects of the female gender-role stereotype and will therefore be disliked (Rudman & Glick, 2001). Most research concludes that the most effective individuals are those who engage in behaviors consistent with their own gender-role. Bartol and Butterfield (1976)

PAGE 17

9 examined the relationship between men and women engaging in in-role versus out-ofrole behaviors and found that both men and women were regarded as less effective when engaging in out-of-role behaviors. Haccoun, Haccoun, and Sallay (1978) support these results and found that women engaging in out-of-role behaviors (stereotypically male) were rated as the least effective. Bradley (1980) found that women were generally not well-liked by their peers when engaging in out-of-role behaviors. Overall, research suggests that men and women are considered more effective and are more liked by their peers when engaging in behaviors consistent with their own gender. Prior research, therefore, suggests that individuals should behave consistently with their appropriate gender-role, as opposed to adopting gender -inconsistent styles (Camden & Witt, 1983; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Kawakami et al., 2000). According to Morrison, White, and VanVelsor (1987) gender-role stereotypes are contributing factors to the perpetuation of the glass-ceiling effect. The perception of women as attempting to occupy roles inconsistent with their expected roles as women helps restrict access to upper-level positions and limits the availability of promotions and career advancement for women in the current workplace. Although research suggests that raters hold gender-role stereotypes of men and women, a limitation of prior research is that typically researchers have not assessed raters’ stereotypes of men. Dobbins et al. (1988) suggest that future research should assess gender-role stereotypes of both men and women and their effects on performance evaluations. Therefore, an important contribution of the current study is an examination of the gender-role stereotypes of both men and women.

PAGE 18

10 Sex-Typing of Jobs Although gender-role stereotypes have been shown to be a contributing factor in the use of discriminatory behaviors in employment settings, the sex-typing of the specific job can also impact whether an individual experiences discrimination during performance evaluations (Davison & Burke, 2000). The sex-typing of jobs (the use of gender-based characteristics to define the characteristics of a job) is a topic that has received a great deal of research attention. The origins of sex-typing have been posited to stem from the traditional division of labor in which women engaged in communal activities (e.g., childcare, cooking, and cleaning; Cohn, 1985). Statistics support this traditional division of labor and illustrate that certain jobs remain highly sex-typed (e.g., female: receptionist, 96.5%; telephone operator, 88.4%; and male: engineer, 91.6%, carpenter, 99.2%; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). Research Examining the Sex-Typing of the Professor Job. Studies examining the sex-typing of the professor job are very limited. Of the few that have investigated the issue, most have found a male bias (e.g., Macan, Detjen & Dickey, 1994; Maurer & Taylor, 1994), whereas others have simply supported the potential for the sex-typing of the professor job (e.g., Brant, 1979; Dobbins et al., 1988). Research Examining the Sex-Typing of Leadership Jobs. A large body of research has focused on the sex-typing of leadership jobs and examines if gender-based characteristics are ascribed to these jobs. Although the job of a manager is not synonymous with that of a professor, many similarities exist and allow for a generalization of the research in this case.

PAGE 19

11 A major researcher in this area is Virginia Schein. In order to assess the extent to which a job is sex-typed, Schein developed the Schein Descriptive Index (SDI; Schein, 1973), a multiple item index containing 92 descriptive words and phrases. In a typical SDI study, participants rate how characteristic the 92 words and phrases are of men, women, or successful managers. The degree of resemblance between the ratings of men, women, and successful managers is determined by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients from randomized group ANOVAs. A significant resemblance between perceptions of men (women) and perceptions of successful managers demonstrates that the manager job is sex-typed in favor of men (women). SDI studies have regularly demonstrated that male participants sex-type the managerial job in favor of men (Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Massengill & DiMarco, 1979; Schein, 1973; Schein, 1975; Schein & Mueller, 1992; Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson, 1989; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996). Findings have been less consistent for female raters, with some studies indicating that female participants perceived managers as possessing qualities attributed to both men and women (e.g., Brenner et al., 1989; Dodge, Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995; Massengill & DiMarco, 1979; Schein et al., 1989), while others have found that women also sex-type the management job in favor of men (e.g., Schein & Mueller, 1992). Schein et al. (1996) found that both male and female students from Japan, China, Germany, and Great Britain sex-typed the managerial job in favor of men. Schein’s hypothesis is that if the managerial job is viewed as having stereotypically male traits associated with it, it will be more difficult for women to be seen as qualified for that job, and therefore it will serve as a detriment to the selection and

PAGE 20

12 promotion of women into such jobs (Schein, 1975). A major limitation of SDI studies is that although they typically help establish that the sex-typing of a job exists, they do not empirically test their main assumption: that the sex-typing of a job will lead to discrimination in the performance evaluation process. A major contribution of the current study is a direct test of this assumption and the establishment of a more direct linkage between an individual sex-typing a job according to the SDI and the actual application of that sex-typed perception in a performance evaluation process. Other research also supports that the sex-typing of specific jobs can lead to a disadvantage for certain populations. Bowman and Worthy (1965) conducted a study examining stereotypes of women in management jobs in which women were described to “scare male executives half to death” and to “break under pressure.” Eagly et al. (1995) examined leadership roles in military, education, service, and governmental organizations and reported that women fared poorly in settings defined in highly male terms (e.g., military), and men fared slightly worse in settings in which leadership was defined in less masculine terms (e.g., education, government, and service organizations). Davidson and Burke (2000) found that when the job was sex-typed in favor of women, women received higher ratings than men, and when the job was sex-typed in favor of men, men received higher ratings. Finally, studies have focused on behavioral styles in relation to expected genderrole behaviors. These studies have shown that men are typically permitted a wider range of behavioral styles than women. Jago and Vroom (1982) reported that men and women exhibiting a participative orientation toward leadership were rated equally effective; however, men displaying authoritarian leadership styles were rated as effective whereas

PAGE 21

13 women were not. Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsky (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of sixty-one research studies on gender and leadership, finding further support for this argument. In general, men were afforded greater opportunities to lead using a variety of styles, without encountering negative reactions. Performance Evaluations Performance evaluations are employed by almost every organization and serve a multitude of purposes. For the employee, performance evaluations can provide feedback or can be used as the basis for pay increases or promotions. For the employer, performance evaluations can be used to ensure that employees are performing at satisfactory levels, for making personnel decisions, and for increasing communication between organizational levels. Obviously, with such significant ramifications, it is essential that performance evaluations be conducted effectively and in an unbiased manner. Typically, performance evaluations contain objective and subjective criteria. Objective performance criteria usually involve measuring an aspect of the job that is quantifiable (e.g., number of units assembled). Subjective criteria are usually composed of ratings or judgments of performance (Spector, 2003). For most high-level jobs, such as the professor job, objective criteria are not often available, so subjective criteria must be used. According to social-cognitive theory, (e.g., DeNisi et al., 1984) performance evaluations typically involve observing performance, storing the information, retrieving the information at a later time, and then rating the performance of the individual. Individuals often use stereotypes or schemata (Borman, 1987) to assist with the evaluation process. It has been reported that the use of stereotypes can allow evaluators

PAGE 22

14 to make more accurate judgments in performance evaluations (Lord & Maher, 1989), but stereotypes can also trigger rating errors which can negatively impact evaluations. Rating errors typically fall into two categories: halo and distributional errors. Halo errors occur when an individual is given consistent ratings across all domains regardless of his/her actual performance. These ratings can be artificially high or artificially low. Distributional errors include: a) leniency errors, in which all ratees receive high scores; b) severity errors, in which all ratees receive low scores; and c) central tendency errors, in which all ratees receive middle scores. Typically, rating errors serve to reduce the accuracy of performance evaluations and decrease the likelihood that the ratees’ true performance level will be captured. In an attempt to reduce errors in performance evaluations, behavior-focused rating scales were developed. Smith and Kendall (1963) introduced behavioral expectations scales (which were later called behaviorally anchored ratings scales, BARS) which ranked the effectiveness of behavioral statements and placed them on a scale. Behavior observation scales (BOS), developed by Latham and Wexley (1981) included a frequency measurement in addition to the behavioral statements. Borman (1979) introduced a modified version of the BARS, the behavior summary scale (BSS) that expanded the category anchors traditionally used in the BARS. Although research suggests that there are only slight differences in the effectiveness of the specific behavior-focused format used (see Landy & Farr, 1983; Schwab, Heneman, & DeCotiis, 1975), their use allows for more accurate ratings by focusing the rater on specific behaviors and providing a more efficient and organized way to assess ratee behavior (Borman, Buck, Hanson, Motowidlo, Stark, & Drasgow, 2001).

PAGE 23

15 Research Involving Performance Evaluations. A large body of performance evaluation research has focused on differences in evaluations caused by ratee gender (e.g., Davison & Burke, 2000; Deaux & Taynor, 1973; Dobbins et al., 1988; Gunderson, Tinsley, & Terpstra, 1996; Martell, 1996; Maurer & Taylor, 1994; Mobley, 1982; Pulakos, White, Oppler, & Borman 1989; Robbins & DeNisi, 1993; Sidanius & Crane, 1989; Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, & Myers, 1989; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1988). Most of these studies have found a pro-male bias exhibited in performance evaluations, especially when the job is sex-typed in favor of men (see Kalin & Hodgins, 1984; Martinko & Gardner, 1983; Nieva & Gutek, 1980; Ruble & Ruble, 1982, for reviews). A limitation of much of this research is that it typically has been conducted in the laboratory, limiting the generalizability of results (Dobbins et al., 1988). The few field studies that have been conducted have returned more mixed results, with some demonstrating a promale bias (e.g., Day & Stogdill, 1972); some a pro-female bias (e.g., Pulakos & Wexley, 1983); and others no bias at all (e.g., Rice, Instone, & Adams, 1984). A much smaller segment of research has focused on social cognitive variables (e.g., stereotypes) in performance evaluations (Dobbins et al., 1988; Martell, 1996; Maurer & Taylor, 1994; Robbins & DeNisi, 1993), with some studies demonstrating that individuals who hold traditional stereotypes of women will be more likely to exhibit a pro-male bias in performance evaluations (Dobbins et al., 1988). Although a great deal of performance evaluation research has focused on these issues, the current study addressed several limitations of previous research. As previously discussed, most studies assessing the impact of ratee sex on performance appraisals have employed laboratory procedures using written vignettes or videotaped

PAGE 24

16 simulations as opposed to live performance appraisal situations. The current study addressed this limitation by utilizing students’ performance evaluations of their actual professors/instructors after a full semester. This approach allowed a more accurate and thoughtful performance evaluation of an employee as opposed to the assessment of a videotaped vignette after a relatively short period of time. Another key limitation of previous research is that although correlational differences were demonstrated based on ratee gender, there has been little attempt made to examine the psychological mechanisms that produced these differences (Dobbins et al., 1988). The current study addressed this limitation by focusing on gender-role stereotypes held by raters as well as the sex-typing of the job.

PAGE 25

17 Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: On average, the “Effective Professor” role is expected to be sex-typed in favor of men. Hypothesis 2: The majority of male participants are expected to sex-type the “Effective Professor” role in favor of “Men,” whereas the majority of female participants are expected to sex-type the “Effective Professor” role in favor of “Women.” Hypothesis 3: Male participants are expected to rate “Women” as less competent, independent, objective, and logical than “Men.” Hypothesis 4: Male participants are expected to rate male professors/instructors as possessing more of the characteristics of an “Effective Professor” than female professors/instructors, whereas female participants are expected to rate female professors/instructors, as possessing more of the characteristics of an “Effective Professor” than male professors/instructors. Hypothesis 5: Professors/instructors who display characteristics that are gender-role congruent will be rated as more effective on performance evaluations.

PAGE 26

18 Hypothesis 6: Participants that are stereotypical in their ratings of “Men” and “Women” will rate professors/instructors who are rated as stereotypically male/female more effective, but will rate professors/instructors who are rated as not stereotypically male/female less effective on performance evaluations. Hypothesis 7: Participants that are stereotypical in their ratings of “Men” and “Women” and sex-type the “Effective Professor” job will show a gender bias in their performance evaluation ratings (in support of their direction of sex-typing). Hypothesis 8: A bias will be evident in performance evaluation ratings in favor of older and male professors/instructors.

PAGE 27

19 Method Participants Participants were recruited from Psychology courses and from an on-line participant pool in the College of Arts and Sciences at a large, Southeastern U.S. state university to complete a three-part study. Eighteen professors/instructors (61.1% male) permitted data collection in their classes. Professor/instructor age was dichotomized (younger = 0, older = 1) resulting in approximately half of the sample of classes in the younger group (55.6%). Ages of participating professors/instructors were estimated by this author. Students received extra credit for their participation when eligible. To establish the desired sample size, a power analysis was conducted using prior correlations as established in the literature (Maurer & Taylor, 1994), with an alpha value of .05 and a desired power of .90 resulting in a desired N = 400. Part 1: Seven hundred ninety-four participants completed part one of the current study. Due to the administration of the study in multiple classes and on-line, 12% ( n = 95) completed part one more than once. Estimates of the reliability of the SDI were calculated for these participants and resulted in an average Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.62. To increase the reliability of measurement and since participants rated the same targets on each occasion, multiple responses were averaged to create composite ratings. The resulting sample consisted of 699 students (76.9% female), ranging in age from 18 to 59 years ( M = 23.1). The majority of the sample (58.4%) listed their ethnicity as Caucasian, Non-Hispanic and their class status as either Senior (48.4%) or Junior (27.8%). Sixty-

PAGE 28

20 eight percent of the participants were employed at the time of the study, with the majority holding food service, retail, or health care jobs. Less than 12% worked in managementlevel jobs and approximately 2% had never held a job. Part 2: Six hundred eighty-two students (77.6% female), ranging in age from 18 to 59 years ( M = 23.1 years) completed part two of the current study. Nine percent ( n = 63) completed part two in more than one class. Participants were distributed across the 18 classes previously discussed, with between 1 and 80 students per class ( M = 37.7). Part 3: Six hundred seventy-one students participated in part three of the current study, with 10% ( n = 67) completing part three in more than one class. Participants completing parts two and three had similar demographic and academic distributions as those reported earlier. Exploratory analyses were conducted to examine the impact of repeated participation. Correlational and regression analyses revealed no significant differences between those repeating the study and those participating only once. Furthermore, since parts two and three of the study assessed participants’ ratings of different targets each time they completed the survey, responses from these students were treated as coming from separate individuals, with the exception of demographic reporting. “Effective Professor” Sample: An independent sample of 388 participants (54.4% female) ranging in age from 18 to 48 years ( M = 21.1 years) was recruited from the on-line participant pool at the same large, Southeastern U.S. state university to provide ratings of an “Effective Professor” which were used for comparative purposes. These students received extra credit for their participation and had similar demographic and academic distributions as those previously reported.

PAGE 29

21 For comparative purposes, Table 1 provides demographic information from parts one, two, three, and the “Effective Professor” sample. Although the majority of participants are female, these samples are highly representative of the population of students enrolled in Psychology courses at the University, and therefore generalizability to this university should not be a problem. Table 1 Demographic Information Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Eff. Prof. Participants 794 682 671 388 Male 182 149 124 177 Female 612 533 469 211 Age (Mean) 23.1 23.07 23.0 21.12 Ethnicity Caucasian, Non Hispanic 58.4% 59.0% 53.1% 66.5% Black or African American 18.2% 16.7% 13.6% 9.0% Hispanic/Latino/Spanish Ancestry 14.5% 15.0% 13.3% 11.9% Other 4.1% 3.8% 3.9% 4.6% Asian 3.3% 4.1% 3.3% 6.4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 1.3% American Indian 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% Alaskan Native 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Class Standing Freshman 3.9% 3.2% 2.8% 30.9% Sophomore 11.3% 10.7% 8.6% 20.9% Junior 27.8% 26.7% 25.2% 22.9% Senior 48.4% 47.2% 45.8% 25.0% Graduate Student 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 0.3% Note. Limited demographic data was collected for part 3, so demographic data are provided based on responses from other sections of the study.

PAGE 30

22 Measures and Procedure Part one of the current study was conducted at the beginning of each summer session (3 summer sessions, ranging in length from 6 to 10 weeks) and involved the administration of the 92-item Schein Descriptive Index (Schein, 1973) to define genderrole stereotypes. Two different versions of the SDI were used with each containing the same descriptive terms and instructions. Participants were randomly assigned to rate the 92 words or phrases using a 5-point scale from 1 ( not characteristic ) to 3 ( neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic ) to 5 ( characteristic ) in terms of how characteristic they were of “Men” or “Women.” Student participants then used another version of the SDI to rate the 92 words or phrases in terms of how characteristic they were of the remaining gender. Finally, students completed a demographic questionnaire containing questions regarding their age, gender, ethnic background, class standing, employment history, and the gender and ethnicity of their employment supervisor. The order of administration of the questionnaires was counterbalanced so that approximately half of the participants received the SDI regarding “Men” first and then the SDI regarding “Women,” while the other half received the SDI’s in the opposite order. Part two was conducted in the middle of each summer session and involved the administration of the SDI to define the characteristics of each professor/instructor. Students rated the 92 words or phrases using the same 5-point scale relative to how characteristic they were of their professor/instructor. Participants then completed a demographic questionnaire containing questions about their age, gender, and ethnic background.

PAGE 31

23 Part three was conducted at the end of each summer session and involved the administration of the University Student Assessment of Instruction and/or the Psychology Department Student Evaluation. Students used the University Student Assessment of Instruction to evaluate their professor/instructor by answering 8 items using a 5-point scale from 1 ( Very Poor ) to 5 ( Very Good ). Additionally, those participants taking classes within the Psychology department also used the Psychology Department Student Evaluation to rate their professor/instructor, which contained 21 items. Students completed the first 7 BSS formatted items using a 5-point scale and the remaining 14 items using 5-point scales with differing anchors. To aid in the collection of data from students who missed class sessions, on-line versions of the SDI questionnaires and the University Student Assessment of Instruction were created. On-line versions contained the same items and instructions as the paperand-pencil versions but were formatted for on-line use. Participants utilizing the on-line versions of the questionnaires followed the same procedures as those completing the measures in class. For part one, the on-line surveys were counterbalanced with the order of presentation (“Men” then “Women,” “Women” then “Men”) altered on a weekly basis. A confidential coding procedure, developed with the assistance of Dr. Paul Spector, University of South Florida, was employed to link participants’ responses on all three parts of the study. Three linking questions were posed to sample members on each part of the study and included: “What are the last three numbers of your social security number,” “What are the last three numbers of your home phone number,” and “What are the first three numbers of your street address.” These questions, which are factual in

PAGE 32

24 nature and presumably did not change, did not enable individual participants to be identified but allowed their responses on all three parts of the study to be linked. Additionally, an independent sample of students was recruited from the on-line participant pool and used the SDI to define characteristics of an “Effective Professor.” An on-line version of the SDI questionnaire was created that contained the same descriptive terms and instructions as the paper-and-pencil versions. Participants rated the 92 words or phrases using the same 5-point scale in terms of how characteristic they were of an “Effective Professor.” They then completed a demographic questionnaire containing questions about their age, gender, ethnic background, class standing, employment history, job, and the gender and ethnicity of their employment supervisor. Preliminary Analyses Preliminary analyses were used to transform the scores on the four forms of the SDI into interpretable predictors. Zero order correlations were calculated between a participant’s ratings on the 92 items for each target and ratings of the 92 items for other variables of interest (e.g., a student’s ratings of his/her professor/instructor and the grand mean ratings of an “Effective Professor”). Furthermore, deviation statistics were calculated to serve as an index of the elevation or depression of each student’s ratings by summing the squared deviations between the ratings of the targets used in each correlation. These zero order correlations and the corresponding deviations were used in subsequent analyses. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the average ratings according to the SDI for each target appear in Table 2.

PAGE 33

25 Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations: Average Partici pants Ratings and Average Ratings of Targets of Interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 “Men” by M. Participants 2 “Men” by F. Participants 0.97** 3 “Women” by M. Participants -0.35** -0.29** 4 “Women” by F. Participants -0.20 -0.19 0.93** 5 “Stereotype of Men” 0.90** 0.87** -0.50** -0.35** 6 “Stereotype of Women” -0.80** -0.77** 0.70** 0.55** -0.91** 7 “Effective Professor” 0.39** 0.31** 0.18 0.44** 0.33** -0.21* 8 Male Profs/Instructs by M. Participants 0.33** 0.25* 0.23* 0.50** 0.26* -0.15 0.97** 9 Fem. Profs/Instructs by M. Participants 0.31** 0.25* 0.30** 0.54** 0.23* -0.08 0.95** 10 Male Profs/Instructs by F. Participants 0.32** 0.25* 0.25* 0.51** 0.25* -0.14 0.97** 11 Fem. Profs/Instructs by F. Participants 0.32** 0.26* 0.31** 0.56** 0.23* -0.09 0.96** 12 Younger Male Profs/Instructs 0.28** 0.21* 0.28** 0.54** 0.21* -0.09 0.97** 13 Younger Female Profs/Instructs 0.32** 0.26* 0.32** 0.57** 0.23* -0.08 0.96** 14 Older Male Profs/Instructs 0.36** 0.29** 0.21* 0.48** 0.29** -0.18 0.97** 15 Older Female Profs/Instructs 0.32** 0.25* 0.26* 0.52** 0.25* -0.13 0.97** Mean 3.49 3.43 3.41 3.56 3.33 2.93 3.45 SD 0.47 0.53 0.50 0.54 1.10 1.13 0.88

PAGE 34

26 Table 2 (Continued) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 8 Male Profs/Instructs by M. Participants 9 Fem. Profs/Instructs by M. Participants 0.96** 10 Male Profs/Instructs by F. Participants 0.99** 0.97** 11 Fem. Profs/Instructs by F. Participants 0.98** 0.98** 0.98** 12 Younger Male Profs/Instructs 0.99** 0.97** 0.99** 0.98** 13 Younger Female Profs/Instructs 0.97** 0.98** 0.98** 0.99** 0.98** 14 Older Male Profs/Instructs 0.99** 0.96** 0.99** 0.97** 0.98** 0.97** 15 Older Female Profs/Instructs 0.98** 0.97** 0.98** 0.99** 0.98** 0.98** 0.98** Mean 3.41 3.44 3.41 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.39 3.44 SD 0.71 0.68 0.75 0.79 0.76 0.74 0.73 0.91 Note. ** p < .01, p < .05

PAGE 35

27 The correlation between male participants’ ratings of “Male” and “Female” ( r = -.35, p < .01) was much stronger and significant as compared to the same correlation for female participants ( r = -0.19, n.s. ), indicating that although both males and females ascribe different characteristics to “Men” and “Women,” males do so more strongly. Male participants also endorsed more stereotypical views in general as demonstrated by the higher correlations between ratings of ‘Male” and “Stereotype of Male” ( r = 0.90, p < .01) and “Female” and “Stereotype of Female” ( r = 0.70, p < .01), as compared to female participants ( r = 0.87, p < .01 and r = 0.55, p < .01, respectively). The dependent variable, professor/instructor performance evaluation ratings, was also manipulated to allow for easier interpretation. The first ten items of the Psychology Department Student Evaluation including the seven BSS items, or all eight items of the University Student Assessment of Instruction were averaged to yield a participant’s average performance evaluation score for their individual professor/instructor. Reliability estimates for the ten items from the Psychology Department Student Evaluation resulted in a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.91. Reliability estimates for the University Student Assessment of Instruction were not available. Preliminary analyses were also conducted to investigate missing data and the normality of data collected. Of the 826 cases available for analysis, 26.3% ( n = 217) had no dependent variable rating, making them unusable. Sixty-two percent ( n = 514) contained all 16 data points used in the analyses. The remaining 11.5% ( n = 95) were missing between 1 and 10 data points ( M = 7.61). Pairwise deletion was employed to ensure that those cases with usable data points would be retained for specific analyses.

PAGE 36

28 The dependent variable, performance evaluation scores, exhibited a ceiling effect (skewness = -1.03, kurtosis = 0.67). On average, female students rated their professors/instructors more positively ( M = 4.31, SD = 0.68) than male students ( M = 4.22, SD = 0.76) and exhibited a smaller standard deviation in performance evaluation scores. Contrary to expectations, on average female professors/instructors received higher performance evaluation scores ( M = 4.33) than male professors/instructors ( M = 4.27). Additionally, younger professors/instructors received higher performance evaluation scores ( M = 4.34) than older professors/instructors ( M = 4.22). Finally, older female professors/instructors received the highest performance evaluation scores ( M = 4.49), followed by younger male professors/instructors ( M = 4.38), younger female professors/instructors ( M = 4.29), and finally older male professors/instructors ( M = 4.16). Means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis values for performance evaluation scores for male and female participants from each class are provided in Table 3. Table 3 Within-Class Differences in Performance Evaluation Ratings Prof/Instruct Female Participants Male Participants Class Gender Age N Mean SD Skew Kurt N Mean SD Skew Kurt 12 F O 28 4.57 0.61-1.823.58 3 4.34 0.74 -1.51. 16 F O 12 4.38 0.58-0.36-1.543 4.25 1.19 -1.71. 2 F Y 3 4.84 0.19-0.98. 0 . . 18 F Y 1 4.63 . 0 . . 6 F Y 62 4.43 0.79-2.084.01 17 4.52 0.51 -0.75-0.77 13 F Y 22 4.41 0.66-1.975.05 7 4.11 0.85 -0.37-2.27 14 F Y 41 4.01 0.69-0.33-0.7212 3.84 0.82 -0.691.19

PAGE 37

29 Table 3 (Continued) Prof/Instruct Female Participants Male Participants Class Gender Age N Mean SD Skew Kurt N Mean SD Skew Kurt 5 M O 6 4.67 0.26-0.670.59 0 . . 4 M O 48 4.37 0.49-0.55-0.1810 4.39 0.67 -1.361.72 8 M O 41 4.25 0.74-0.38-1.409 4.49 0.68 -1.502.00 9 M O 6 4.23 0.80-0.950.23 2 4.60 0.57 . 11 M O 33 3.89 0.65-0.861.49 16 4.30 0.67 -0.88-0.27 3 M O 29 3.72 0.62-0.09-0.8911 3.88 0.76 -0.57-0.92 10 M Y 2 5.00 0.00. 1 5.00 0 . 7 M Y 39 4.65 0.46-1.501.47 10 3.70 0.99 -0.840.70 15 M Y 42 4.40 0.66-1.00-0.037 4.21 0.81 -0.73-1.15 1 M Y 44 4.34 0.56-0.780.37 8 4.53 0.42 -0.65-1.01 17 M Y 23 4.28 0.74-1.482.61 11 4.13 0.90 -0.75-0.43 Note. Gender (M = Male, F = Female); Age (Y = Younger, O = Older). An examination of the normality of the correlations used as predictors revealed that most were normally distributed with skewness values ranging from -0.19 to 0.09. The correlation between ratings of “Women” and ratings of the “Stereotype of Women” demonstrated a negative skew (-0.49) as did the correlation between ratings of “Men” and ratings of the “Stereotype of Men” (-0.74). As expected, the correlation between ratings of actual professors/instructors and ratings of effective professors demonstrated a large negative skew (-1.37). Deviation statistics consistently demonstrated positive skewness values (ranging from 0.92 to 2.05). Descriptive statistics for each predictor and the dependent variable are provided in Table 4.

PAGE 38

30 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for each Predictor and the Dependent Variable N Min Max Mean SD SkewKurt Performance Evaluation 6091.67 5.00 4.29 0.70 -1.03 0.67 r Profs/Instructs and “Effective Professor” 680-0.33 0.92 0.63 0.21 -1.37 1.86 Dev (P/I & EP) 68016.01355.0884.75 45.61 1.80 4.55 Individual Sex-Typing 772-8.50 7.99 -0.31 2.08 -0.02 1.59 Gender-Role Congruity 639-0.55 0.83 0.17 0.23 0.09 0.08 Dev (G-RC) 63816.00597.00183.36 93.19 1.16 2.03 r “Men” & “Stereotype of Men” 780-0.40 0.83 0.45 0.21 -0.74 0.24 Dev (M & SM) 78440.86540.00121.76 57.56 2.05 7.15 r “Women” & “Stereotype of Women” 782-0.54 0.79 0.32 0.23 -0.49 -0.16 Dev (W & SW) 78756.67529.00182.51 79.14 1.10 1.46 r Profs/Instructs & “Stereotype of M/W” 676-0.51 0.57 0.09 0.19 -0.19 -0.30 Dev (P/I & SM/W) 67686.44562.33231.22 85.15 0.92 0.48

PAGE 39

31 Results Hypothesis 1 predicted that the “Effective Professor” role would be sex-typed in favor of men. The degree of resemblance between ratings of an “Effective Professor” and ratings of “Men” and ratings of “Women” were determined by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients ( r ’s) from randomized group ANOVAs (see Hayes, 1963; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). For male and female samples, mean item ratings for the 92 descriptive items for “Men” and “Women” were compared with those for an “Effective Professor.” An r to z transformation was calculated and a z-test was used to analyze differences between the r ’s. This analysis is consistent with the analysis employed by Schein (1973, 1975) and subsequent studies using the SDI (e.g., Brenner et al., 1989; Dodge et al., 1995; Schein & Mueller, 1992; Tomkiewicz, Brenner, & Adeyemi-Bello, 1998). In support of hypothesis 1, male participants sex-typed the “Effective Professor” job in favor of men. The correlation between males’ ratings of “Men” and ratings of an “Effective Professor” ( r = 0.52) was significantly higher than the correlation between males’ ratings of “Women” and ratings of an “Effective Professor” ( r = 0.26, z = 2.08, p < .05). Furthermore, the correlation between males’ ratings of “Women” and ratings of an “Effective Professor” ( r = 0.26) was significantly lower than the correlation between females’ ratings of “Women” and ratings of an “Effective Professor” ( r = 0.55, z = -2.39, p < .05), indicating that males ascribed fewer characteristics of an “Effective Professor” to “Women.” Contrary to hypothesis 1, for females, no significant differences were found between ratings of “Men” and “Women” and ratings of an “Effective Professor.”

PAGE 40

32 Hypothesis 2 predicted a gender bias in the sex-typing of the professor role at the individual participant level. Males were expected to sex-type the “Effective Professor” role in favor of men, but females were expected to sex-type the “Effective Professor” role in favor of women. The degree of resemblance between mean item ratings for the 92 descriptive items for an “Effective Professor” and individual participant ratings of “Men” and “Women” was determined by calculating Pearson product-moment correlations ( r ’s) for each sample member. An r to z transformation was calculated, and a z-test was used to analyze the differences between the r ’s. This analysis is consistent with the analysis employed for hypothesis 1. In support of hypothesis 2, the majority of males (58.7%) showed a male-bias in their descriptions of the “Effective Professor” role and the majority of females (60.9%) showed a female-bias in their descriptions of the “Effective Professor” role. A z-test between correlations was conducted to investigate between subject differences in average ratings for male and female samples. Adding support to hypothesis 2, results demonstrated that the correlation between ratings of an “Effective Professor” and ratings of “Women” for males ( r = 0.09) was marginally lower than the same correlation for females ( r = 0.24, z = -1.70, p < .10). There were no significant differences found between ratings of “Men” and ratings of an “Effective Professor” for male and female samples. Correlations for the male, female, and total samples are provided in Table 5.

PAGE 41

33 Table 5 Individual Participant Sex-Typing: Average of Individual Participant Correlations Comparison Total Sample Male Participants Female Participants N =690 n =160 n =530 “Effective Professor” and “Men” 0.16 0.18 0.16 “Effective Professor” and “Women” 0.20 0.09a 0.24a Note a Indicates a significant difference between variables at the 0.10 alpha level. Hypothesis 3 investigated the persistence of specific gender-role stereotypes as discussed in previous research. Mean item ratings across four characteristics of interest (independent, competent, objective, and logical) were calculated for each student participant. A paired t-test was conducted to determine if significant differences existed between participants’ ratings of “Men” and “Women” on these four characteristics. In support of hypothesis 3, results indicate that both males, t (153) = 8.05, p < .01 and females, t (519) = 3.90, p < .01 rated “Men” significantly more independent, competent, objective, and logical than “Women.” An independent samples t-test was conducted to determine if differences existed between male and female samples. Results indicate that males rated “Women” ( M = 3.26) lower on these four characteristics than females did ( M = 3.68), t (681) = -7.00, p < .01. There were no significant differences between the mean item ratings of “Men” by males and females. Table 6 presents the mean item ratings for these four characteristics for the male, female, and total samples.

PAGE 42

34 Table 6 Mean Item Ratings of “Non-Stereotypical” C haracteristics of Women as Described by Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, and Rosenkrantz (1972) Characteristic Total Male Participants Female Participants N =690 n =160 n =530 Mean ratings of “Men” 3.81 3.83 a 3.80 b Independent 4.13 4.09 4.15 Competent 3.77 3.76 3.77 Objective 3.56 3.59 3.55 Logical 3.78 3.88 3.75 Mean ratings of “Women” 3.59 3.26 a c 3.68 b c Independent 3.64 3.29 3.75 Competent 3.87 3.58 3.95 Objective 3.38 3.18 3.43 Logical 3.47 3.06 3.59 Note a b c Indicates a significant difference between variables at the 0.05 alpha level. Hypothesis 4 predicted a gender bias in the descriptions of actual professors/ instructors. Males were expected to ascribe more of the characteristics of an “Effective Professor” to male professors/instructors, whereas females were expected to ascribe more of the characteristics of an “Effective Professor” to female professors/instructors. The degree of resemblance between ratings of an “Effective Professor” and ratings of male and female professors/instructors were compared by calculating Pearson product-moment correlations ( r ’s) for each sample member. Z -tests between correlations were conducted to determine if significant differences existed.

PAGE 43

35 Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Although both males and females described male professors/instructors with more of the characteristics of an “Effective Professor” than female professors/instructors, there were no statistically significant differences. Correlations for the male, female, and total samples are provided in Table 7. Table 7 Correlations: Ratings of Professors/Instructors and Ratings of an Effective Professor Comparison Total Male Participants Female Participants N =449 n =101 n =348 Male Professors/Instructors and an “Effective Professor” 0.64 0.60 0.65 N =229 n =48 n =181 Female Professors/Instructors and an “Effective Professor” 0.63 0.57 0.64 Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test hypothesis 5 which predicted the gender-role congruity of professors/instructors would be positively related to performance evaluations and would explain significant variance in performance evaluation scores beyond control variables. In step one of the regression equation, class membership, a categorical variable which was dummy-coded into eighteen dichotomous variables, was entered as a control to account for class differences in performance evaluation scores. Participant gender (0 = male, 1 = female), professor/instructor gender (0 = male, 1 = female), and professor/instructor age (0 = younger, 1 = older) were entered in step two. The correlation and deviation between professor/instructors’ characteristics and the characteristics of an “Effective Professor” were entered in step three. Genderrole congruity and its deviation were entered in step four. The dependent variable was the performance evaluation score. Results are provided in Table 8.

PAGE 44

36 Table 8 Multiple Hierarchical Regression Results – Hypothesis 5 Predictor Step 1 Class R2 (0.10)*** Step 2 Participant Gender -0.01 Professor/Instructor Gender 0.03 Professor/Instructor Age 0.84 R2 (0.00) Step 3 r Ratings of Professors/Instructors and “Effective Professor” 0.64*** Dev Ratings of Professors/Instructors and “Effective Professor” 0.21** R2 (0.21)*** Step 4 Gender-Role Congruity -0.12* Deviation of Gender-Role Congruity -0.13* R2 (0.01) R2 Total 0.32 Overall F 10.49*** .. Note. p < .10 p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Only the R2 for the eighteen dichotomously coded class variables is presented. Only two of the beta weights were significant for class membership (Classes 3 and 11).

PAGE 45

37 Results indicated that gender-role congruity explained unique variance in performance evaluation scores beyond the control variables ( R2 = 0.01, F = 2.77, p < .10). Contrary to hypothesis 5, gender-role congruity (the correlation between a professor/instructor’s characteristics and the characteristics of the same gender) was negatively related to performance evaluation scores ( = -0.12, p < .05), indicating that as gender-role congruity decreases, performance evaluation scores increase. As expected, the deviation of gender-role congruity (the sum of the squared deviations between a professor/instructor’s characteristics and the characteristics of the same gender) was negatively related to performance evaluation scores ( = -0.13, p < .05), indicating that as the deviation decreases, performance evaluations increase. Moderated hierarchical regression was used to test hypothesis 6, which predicted gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of the masculinity/femininity of professors/ instructors would impact performance evaluation scores. In steps one, two, and three, the same controls were entered as for hypothesis 5. The degree of gender-role stereotyping (correlations between ratings of “Men” and the “Stereotype of Men,” between ratings of “Women” and the “Stereotype of Women,” and their deviations) and perceptions of the masculinity/femininity of professors/instructors (correlations between ratings of male/female professors/instructors and the stereotype of men/women and their deviations) were entered in step four. An interaction term was entered in step five. The dependent variable was the performance evaluation score. Results are provided in Table 9.

PAGE 46

38 Table 9 Moderated Hierarchical Regression Results – Hypothesis 6 Predictor Step 1 Class R2 (0.10)*** Step 2 Participant Gender -0.01 Professor/Instructor Gender -0.08 Professor/Instructor Age 1.43* R2 (0.00) Step 3 r Ratings of Professors/Instructors and “Effective Professor” 0.20* Dev Ratings of Professors/Instructors and “Effective Professor” -0.29*** R2 (0.21)*** Step 4 r Ratings of “Men” and “Stereotype of Men” -0.20** Dev Ratings of “Men” and “Stereotype of Men” -0.15* r Ratings of “Women” and “Stereotype of Women” 0.13* Dev Ratings of “Women” and “Stereotype of Women” 0.01 r Ratings of M/F Professors/Instructors and “Stereotype of M/W” -0.08 Dev of M/F Professors/Instructors and “Stereotype of M/W” 0.53*** R2 (0.05)*** Step 5 Int of r and Dev (Ratings of M/F Prof/Insts and “Stereotype of M/W”) 0.26* R2 (0.01)* R2 Total 0.36 Overall F 10.83*** .. Note. p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Only the R2 for the eighteen dichotomously dummy coded class variables is presented. Eight of the beta weights were significant for class membership (Classes 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16).

PAGE 47

39 Results indicated that gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of the masculinity/ femininity of professors/instructors explained unique variance in performance evaluation scores beyond the control variables ( R2 = 0.05, F = 6.15, p < .001). In support of hypothesis 6, gender-role stereotypes of “Men” were negatively related to performance evaluation scores ( = -0.20, p < .01), indicating that individuals with less stereotypical ratings of “Men” gave higher performance evaluation scores. Furthermore, as expected, an interaction was positively related to performance evaluation scores ( = 0.26, p < .05), in which those individuals with low correlations between ratings of their professor/ instructor and gender-role stereotypes of “Men” and “Women” had high deviation scores between the same two variables and had higher performance evaluation scores. Contrary to hypothesis 6, gender-role stereotypes of “Women” were positively related to performance evaluation scores ( = 0.13, p < .05), indicating that those individuals with more stereotypical ratings of “Women” gave higher performance evaluation scores. Additionally, beta weights indicated that professor/instructor age ( = 1.43, p < .05) was positively related to performance evaluation scores, indicating that older professors/instructors received higher overall performance evaluation scores. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to test Hypothesis 7, which predicted that gender-role stereotypes and the sex-typing of the “Effective Professor” job would impact performance evaluation scores. In steps one, two, and three the same controls were entered as for Hypotheses 5 and 6. The degree of gender-role stereotyping and the degree of individual sex-typing were entered in step four. The dependent variable was the performance evaluation score. Results are provided in Table 10.

PAGE 48

40 Table 10 Multiple Hierarchical Regression Results Hypothesis 7 Predictor Step 1 Class R2 (0.10)*** Step 2 Participant Gender 0.00 Professor/Instructor Gender 0.06 Professor/Instructor Age 0.90 R2 (0.00) Step 3 r Ratings of Professors/Instructors and “Effective Professor” 0.56*** Dev Ratings of Professors/Instructors and “Effective Professor” 0.12* R2 (0.21)*** Step 4 r “Men” & “Stereotype of Men” -0.22*** Dev “Men” and “Stereotype of Men” -0.17* r “Women” and “Stereotype of Women” 0.15* Dev “Women” and “Stereotype of Women” 0.09 Individual Sex-Typing 0.06 Table 10 (Continued) R2 (0.02)** R2 Total 0.33 Overall F 10.24*** .. Note. p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Only the R2 for the eighteen dichotomously dummy coded class variables is presented. Three of the beta weights were significant for class membership (Classes 3, 9, and 11).

PAGE 49

41 Results indicated that gender-role stereotypes and the sex-typing of the “Effective Professor” job explained unique variance in performance evaluation scores beyond the control variables ( R2 = 0.02, F = 3.37, p < .01). In support of hypothesis 7, and consistent with results from hypothesis 6, gender-role stereotypes of “Men” were negatively related to performance evaluation scores ( = -0.22, p < .001). Contrary to hypothesized relationships, individual sex-typing of the professor job was not significantly related to performance evaluations scores ( = 0.06, n.s. ); genderrole stereotypes of “Women” were positively related to performance evaluation scores ( = 0.15, p < .05); and the deviation of gender-role stereotypes of “Men” was negatively related to performance evaluation scores ( = -0.17, p < .05). Correlations, means, and standard deviations for predictors used in all regression analyses are provided in Table 11.

PAGE 50

42 Table 11 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Regression Analyses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 Participant Gender 2 Professor/Instructor Gender 0.03 3 Professor/Instructor Age 0.02 -0.31** 4 Class -0.06 0.26** -0.18** 5 r Profs and “Effective Prof” 0.11** -0.03 0.08* -0.07 6 Dev -0.08* 0.11** -0.11** 0.09* -0.62** 7 Gender-Role Congruity 0.10** 0.21** -0.09* 0.00 0.25** -0.04 8 Dev -0.04 -0.07 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.44** -0.40** 9 r “Men” & “St of Men” 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.30** -0.27** 0.13** -0.01 10 Dev 0.00 -0.06 -0.02 -0.04 -0.19** 0.37** -0.09* 0.40** -0.73** 11 r “Women” & “St of Women” -0.01 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.16** -0.23** -0.14** 0.01 0.51** -0.46** 12 Dev 0.04 -0.06 -0.01 -0.07 -0.04 0.29** 0.10** 0.30** -0.37** 0.63** -0.73** 13 r Profs & “St of M/W” -0.01 -0.55** 0.24** -0.21** 0.10** -0.09* 0.22** -0.05 0.03 0.00 0.02 -0.01 14 Dev 0.02 0.52** -0.22** 0.15** 0.18** 0.42** 0.11** 0.45** -0.01 0.17** -0.10* 0.25** -0.62** 15 Individual Sex-Typing -0.26** 0.07 -0.02 0.02 0.04 -0.05 0.09* -0.08 0.25** -0.23** 0.40** -0.33** 0.01 -0.03 16 Performance Evaluation 0.05 0.04 -0.08* -0.03 0.46** -0.23** 0.09* 0.04 0.08* -0.08* 0.14** -0.05 -0.05 0.23** 0.08 Mean N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.63 84.75 0.17 183.36 0.45 121.76 0.32 182.51 0.09 231.22 -0.31 Standard Deviation N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.21 45.61 0.23 93.19 0.21 57.56 0.23 79.14 0.19 85.15 2.08 Note. N ranges from 522 to 826. p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 51

43 Hypothesis 8 predicted gender and age biases in performance evaluation ratings in favor of older and male professors/instructors. Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between professor/instructor gender, professor/instructor age, and performance evaluation scores. Contrary to hypothesis 8, there was no relationship between professor/instructor gender and performance evaluation scores ( r = 0.04, n.s. ). Also contrary to hypothesis 8, there was a negative relationship between professor/ instructor age and performance evaluation scores ( r = -0.08, p < .05), indicating that younger professors/instructors received higher performance evaluation scores than older professors/instructors. However, in support of hypothesis 8, beta weights from the regression equation for hypothesis 6 indicated that professor/instructor age was positively related to performance evaluation scores ( = 1.43, p < .05) indicating that older professors/ instructors received higher overall performance evaluation scores. It is important to note that while the beta coefficient is contrary to the zero-order correlation, the beta weight demonstrates stronger evidence in this analysis because it provides the unique variance accounted for by each coefficient while holding all other coefficients constant. Correlations, means, and standard deviations for professor/instructor gender, professor/instructor age, and performance evaluation scores are provided in Table 12.

PAGE 52

44 Table 12 Correlations between Professor/Instructor Gender, Age, and Performance Evaluations 1 2 3 1 Professor/Instructor Gender 2 Professor/Instructor Age -0.31** 3 Performance Evaluation 0.04 -0.08* Mean NA NA 4.29 SD NA NA 0.70 Note. N ranges from 609 to 801, p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 53

45 Discussion Results of this study illustrate several important findings which make noteworthy contributions to the current literature. First, this study adds to the very small body of literature examining the sex-typing of the professor job and demonstrates that the “Effective Professor” job is sex-typed. Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Macan et al., 1994; Maurer & Taylor, 1994), male participants, on average, sex-typed the “Effective Professor” job in favor of men, ascribing more characteristics of an “Effective Professor” to males than to females. Female participants, on average, did not demonstrate sex-typed perceptions. Findings from the current study are also consistent with previous research utilizing the SDI in which male participants regularly sex-type a job (e.g., Brenner et al., 1989; Heilman et al., 1989; Schein & Mueller, 1992), whereas, female participants do not (e.g., Brenner et al., 1989; Massengill & DiMarco, 1979; Schein et al., 1989). Upon examining the sex-typing of the “Effective Professor” job on an individual participant level, results revealed a main effect for participant gender. The majority of male participants showed a male bias in their perceptions of an “Effective Professor,” whereas the majority of female participants showed a female bias in their perceptions of an “Effective Professor.” Additionally, this investigation into the sex-typing of the professor job revealed that male and female participants ascribe significantly different characteristics to each gender, as is evidenced by the significantly lower resemblance between males’ ratings of

PAGE 54

46 “Women” and ratings of an “Effective Professor” and females’ ratings of “Women” and ratings of an “Effective Professor.” Second, by investigating the stereotypical characteristics associated with both genders, this study addressed a major limitation of previous research in that researchers typically have not assessed raters’ stereotypes of men (see Dobbins et al., 1988). The current study allowed for the development of composite lists of stereotypical characteristics for each gender. Broverman et al. (1972) described a characteristic as stereotypical if it is endorsed as being representative of a specific gender by 75% of both males and females. Female characteristics which met or approached the Broverman et al. criteria consisted of communal and relationship-oriented characteristics: sympathetic, aware of feelings of others, sentimental, talkative, and understanding (see Appendix A). Furthermore, female “non-stereotypical” characteristics were culled from the data and consisted of those characteristics receiving the lowest endorsement as descriptive of women in general. These characteristics consisted primarily of agentic and authoritative characteristics: authoritative, high need for power, dominant, aggressive, feelings not easily hurt, vulgar, and competitive (see Appendix B). Male characteristics which met or approached the Broverman et al. criteria consisted of agentic and authoritative characteristics: dominant, feelings not easily hurt, high need for power, aggressive, and authoritative (see Appendix C). Male “nonstereotypical” characteristics culled from the data consisted primarily of communal and relationship-oriented characteristics: sympathetic, aware of feelings of others, kind, talkative, and sentimental (see Appendix D).

PAGE 55

47 Although these characteristics may be considered stereotypes, research suggests that there may be actual differences in behavior which support these descriptions. In general, research has suggested that women typically engage in more communal behaviors than men, whereas men engage in more agentic behaviors (Eagly, 1994; Eagly & Wood, 1991; Swim, 1994). Results of this study supported the findings of Broverman et al. (1972) in which men were described as more independent, competent, objective, and logical than women. Contrary to expectations, both male and female participants agreed with this stereotype. Further investigation illustrated that while male and female participants rated “Men” fairly equally, there was a significant difference in how male and female participants rated “Women,” further illustrating the significant differences in gender-role stereotypes held by males and females. Third, although the results of this study demonstrate that the professor job can be sex-typed, and that male and female participants hold different gender-role stereotypes, there was no negative impact of these practices when participants were asked to describe the characteristics of their actual professors/instructors. The most representative characteristics of individual professors/instructors were culled from the data: intelligent, competent, consistent, well informed, helpful, and logical. Appendix E provides characteristic terms and their average ratings for each professor/instructor. For comparison, stereotypical characteristics of an “Effective Professor” were also culled from the data and revealed neither a wealth of agentic nor communal characteristics: intelligent, helpful, understanding, consistent, leadership ability, and logical (see Appendix F for a complete list). Analyses revealed no gender differences in the characteristics that male and female participants ascribe to their male and female

PAGE 56

48 professors/instructors (with correlations between 0.96 and 0.98) and that these characteristics were practically the same characteristics ascribed to an “Effective Professor” (with correlations between 0.95 and 0.97). These findings suggest that although male and female participants may sex-type the “Effective Professor” role, when it comes to describing their actual professors/instructors, gender-role stereotypes and sextyping may no longer be involved. Fourth, results of the current study contradicted previous research in which gender-role congruity was found to be positively related to performance outcomes (e.g., Bartol & Butterfield, 1976; Hackman et al., 1993; Rudman & Glick, 2001). Although gender-role congruity explained unique variance in performance evaluation scores, the beta weight was opposite to the hypothesized direction, indicating that as gender-role congruity decreases, performance evaluation scores increased. This finding may intuitively make sense; if male professors/instructors display less stereotypically masculine characteristics (dominant, feelings not easily hurt, high need for power, aggressive, and authoritative) and female professors/instructors display less stereotypically feminine characteristics (sympathetic, aware of feelings of others, sentimental, talkative, and understanding), their profiles may more closely approximate those of an “Effective Professor” and therefore result in higher performance evaluation ratings. Although previous research has proposed that gender-role incongruity will lead to the perception that women are less qualified for certain jobs (Eagly & Karau, 2002), it appears that the congruence between the professors’/instructors’ characteristics and those required by the job (characteristics of an “Effective Professor”) played a more pivotal role in predicting performance evaluation ratings in this case (accounting for 21% of the

PAGE 57

49 variance in performance evaluation scores, as compared to just 1% attributable to genderrole congruity). It is apparent that those professors/instructors engaging in “in-role” behaviors were rated as more effective than those engaging in “out-of-role” behaviors, but the role that was most important was the professor/instructor role, not the gender-role. The current study contributes to the present literature by employing a real life setting in which to examine the effects of gender-role stereotypes and the sex-typing of the professor job on performance evaluations. The use of students’ actual performance evaluations of their professors/instructors after a semester of class participation, as opposed to a contrived situation in a laboratory setting, allows a more realistic view of the hypothesized relationships. Additionally, the specific focus of the current study on the effects of social cognitive variables (e.g., stereotypes) on performance evaluations adds to the limited previous research addressing this issue (e.g., Dobbins et al., 1988; Martell, 1996; Maurer & Taylor, 1994; Robbins & DeNisi, 1993). Furthermore, a major limitation of previous SDI studies is that although they typically help establish that the sex-typing of a job exists, they do not empirically test if the sex-typing of a job will lead to discrimination in the performance evaluation process. The current study makes a significant contribution by doing so. Contrary to previous findings (e.g., Davidson & Burke, 2000), the sex-typing of the job did not influence performance evaluation ratings; however, gender-role stereotypes did. Results demonstrated that gender-role stereotypes of “Men” were negatively related to performance evaluation scores, whereas gender-role stereotypes of “Women” were positively related to performance evaluation scores. These findings, although somewhat contradictory, may be explained through careful analysis.

PAGE 58

50 The strong negative relationship between gender-role stereotypes of “Men” and performance evaluation scores indicates that those participants with very stereotypical ratings of “Men” gave lower performance evaluation scores. Consistent with hypothesized relationships and social-cognitive theory, those individuals who agreed with the stereotype of men as dominant, aggressive, and authoritative, may have been less open to observing actual differences in the performance of professors/instructors and instead relied on their gender-role stereotypes. Furthermore, the significant interaction between gender-role stereotypes of “Men” and “Women” and characteristics of professors/instructors indicates that those individuals who did not identify their professors/instructors as stereotypically masculine or feminine gave higher performance evaluation scores. This finding supports results from hypothesis 4, in which gender-role congruity led to decreased performance evaluation scores. When considered in conjunction with the previously discussed relationship, in which those individuals who had low stereotypes of “Men” gave higher performance evaluations, these results indicate that those individuals who do not hold strong genderrole stereotypes are less likely to stereotype their professor/instructor and are more likely to give positive performance evaluation ratings. The positive relationship between gender-role stereotypes of “Women” and performance evaluation scores, although contrary to hypothesized relationships, may be explained by focusing on the general perceptions of participants. Results indicated that those participants with more stereotypical ratings of “Women” gave higher performance evaluation scores to their actual professors/instructors. Although the sample is very representative of the Psychology department, the majority of the sample was female.

PAGE 59

51 Results show that female participants demonstrated a decisive female bias in their ratings, using more stereotypically female characteristics to describe their actual professors/ instructors regardless of professor/instructor gender. These findings may be attributable to the subject matter of the courses from which participants were recruited (Psychology), as well as the majors of most participants (Psychology). Psychology courses (which are presumably more relationship-oriented than other subjects) may have influenced the extent to which participants agreed with the stereotypes of “Women.” Furthermore, professors/instructors of Psychology courses themselves (who are presumably more relationship-oriented than professors/instructors of other subjects) may have also influenced the extent to which participants agreed with the stereotype of “Women.” In a sense, the subject matter and the professors/instructors of the courses may have primed participants to be more accepting of the relationship-focus of the female stereotype. Finally, although a large body of research has investigated differences in evaluations caused by ratee gender (e.g., Dobbins et al., 1988; Martell, 1996; Maurer & Taylor, 1994; Pulakos et al., 1989), a limitation of many previous studies is that they typically have been conducted in the laboratory, limiting the generalizability of the results (Dobbins et al., 1988). A contribution of the current study is an investigation of the effects of professor/instructor gender and professor/instructor age on performance evaluations after a full semester of interaction with actual students. Results revealed a significant negative correlation between professor/instructor age and performance evaluation scores. However, results of the regression analysis indicated a significant positive relationship between the two variables. Although results of the regression analysis contradict the zero-order correlation, results of the regression analysis

PAGE 60

52 demonstrate stronger evidence since the beta weights provide the unique variance accounted for by each coefficient while holding all other coefficients constant. There were no significant relationships found for professor/instructor gender. These findings support the stereotypical depiction of a professor as older, but do not support any gender differences. Results of the current study are inconsistent with previous research in which pro-male biases were observed (see Kalin & Hodgins, 1984; Martinko & Gardner, 1983; Nieva & Gutek, 1980; Ruble & Ruble, 1982, for reviews). In summary, results demonstrate that the professor job is sex-typed, that males and females hold different gender-role stereotypes, and that these practices can affect performance evaluations. This study has established that not only are performance evaluations influenced by the characteristics that an individual has in common with the characteristics required by the job (characteristics of an “Effective Professor” in this case, R2 = .21), but that they are also influenced by the gender-role stereotypes held by raters and the sex-typing of the job (R2 = .05), as well as the gender-role congruity of the ratee (R2 = .01). Although the variance attributable to gender-role stereotypes, gender-role congruity, and the sex-typing of the professor job is relatively small, it is the cumulative force of these effects that may make the biggest impact and therefore, needs further investigation (Agars, 2004). Limitations A potential limitation of the current study is the choice of student performance evaluations as the dependent variable. Although performance evaluations are normally taken seriously by students, it is possible that some students disregarded instructions and did not respond honestly. Research suggests that student performance evaluations can be

PAGE 61

53 influenced by factors other than the professor/instructor, including course level, whether the course is an elective or required course, the size of the class (Neath, 1996), and the style of grading (Greenwald & Gilmore, 1997). Although the student performance evaluation may have flaws, it is one of the most widely used evaluation procedures for professors/instructors (other than tenure) and was necessary in this case. Furthermore, the performance evaluation employed in this study used BSS formatted items which have been shown to focus the rater on specific behaviors and provide a more efficient and organized way to assess ratee behavior (Borman et al., 2001). Another potential weakness of the present study is that participants may have responded in socially desirable ways due to the use of a self-report technique (e.g. Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980; Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992). Every effort was made to ensure that this bias would not influence the results. For example, participants were given only one part of the study at a time which limited their exposure to other components of the study. Each part of the study indicated only the specific target the participant was asked to rate and made no reference to targets of previous or future parts of the study. Participants were not told the purpose of the study until after they had completed all three parts of the study. Participants were also specifically instructed to keep their answers private to avoid influencing any other participants. Furthermore, a time interval, as dictated by the length of the semester, was employed to limit history effects. Additionally, the small number of professors/instructors allowing data collection in their classes may have served as a limitation. Although between-class differences were not hypothesized in the current study, an increase in the number of

PAGE 62

54 professors/instructors, and therefore classes, could have permitted the use of multiple level modeling to investigate between-class differences. Finally, the generalizability of this study may be a limitation if generalizations to applied settings or other colleges within the University are attempted. Results of this study must be examined with the perspective that the study was conducted within a specific college at a large Southeastern U.S. state university and applied only to that college. What can be generalized from this study to other settings is that gender-role stereotypes and the sex-typing of jobs may affect performance evaluations. A suggestion for future research would be to investigate these effects in other settings.

PAGE 63

55 References Agars, M. D. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of gender stereotypes on the advancement of women in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28 103-111. Arvey, R. D. (1979). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: Legal and psychological aspects. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 736–765. Bartol, K. M., & Butterfield, D. A. (1976). Sex effects in evaluating leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 446-454. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88 354–364. Blake, J. (1969). Population policy for Americans: Is the government being misled? Science, 164 522-529. Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 410-421. Borman, W. C. (1987). Personal constructs, performance schemata, and “folk theories” of subordinate effectiveness: Explorations in an army officer sample. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40 307-322. Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 965-973.

PAGE 64

56 Bowman, G. W., & Worthy, N. B. (1965). Are women executives people? Harvard Business Review, 43 14-34. Bradley, P. H. (1980). Sex, competence and opinion deviations: An expectation states approach. Communication Monographs, 47 101-110. Brant, W. D. (1979). Attitudes towards female professors scale. Psychological Reports, 44 1310. Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32 662-669. 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. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5 665-692. Camden, C. T., & Witt, J. (1983). Manager communicative style and productivity: A study of female and male managers. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 6 258-269. Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Cohn, S. (1985). The process of occupational sex-typing. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press.

PAGE 65

57 Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research & practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Keohler. Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of Black and White discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87 546-563. Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56 225– 248. Day, D. R., & Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Leader behavior of male and female supervisors: A comparative study. Personnel Psychology, 25 353-360. Deaux, K., & Taynor, J. (1973). Evaluation of male and female ability: Bias works two ways. Psychological Reports, 32 261– 262. Del Boca, F. K., Ashmore, R. D., & McManus, M. A. (1986). Gender-related attitudes. In R. D. Ashmore & F. K. Del Boca (Eds.), The social psychology of female–male relations: A critical analysis of central concepts (pp. 121–163). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. DeNisi, A., Cafferty, T., & Meglino, B. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and some research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33 360-396. Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Truxillo, D. M. (1988). The effects of purpose of appraisal and individual differences in stereotypes of women on sex differences in performance ratings: A laboratory and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 551–558.

PAGE 66

58 Dodge, K. A., Gilroy, F. D., & Fenzel, L. M. (1995). Requisite management characteristics revisited: Two decades later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10 253-264. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavi or: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H. (1994). On comparing women and men. Feminism and Psychology, 4 513522. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109 573-598. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117 125-145. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111 3-22. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 306315. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology Danvers, MA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

PAGE 67

59 Fiske, S. T., Neuberg, S. L., Beattie, A. E., & Milberg, S. J. (1987). Category-based and attribute based reactions to others: Some informational conditions of stereotyping and individuating processes. Journal of Experiment al Social Psychology, 23, 399– 427. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley. Forbes, J. B., Piercy, J. E., & Hayes, T. L. (1988). Women executives: Breaking down the barriers? Business Horizons, Nov-Dec 6-9. Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Warner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 1323-1334. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 491512. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 33 (pp. 115-188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52 1209-1217. Gunderson, D. E., Tinsley, D. B., & Terpstra, D. E. (1996). Empirical assessment of impression management bias: The potential for performance appraisal error. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11 57–76. Gutek, B. A., & Cohen, A. G. (1987). Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sex at work: A comparison of men’s and women’s experiences. Human Relations, 40 97-115.

PAGE 68

60 Haccoun, D. M., Haccoun, R. R., & Sallay, G. (1978). Sex differences in the appropriateness of supervisory styles: A non-management view. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 124-127. Hackman, M. Z., Hillis, M. J., Paterson, T. J., & Furniss, A. H. (1993). Leaders’ genderrole as a correlate of subordinates’ perceptions of effectiveness and satisfaction. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 77 671-674. Hayes, W. L. (1963). Statistics for psychologists New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 935-942. Helgeson, V. S. (2002). The psychology of gender. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47 237-271. Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift. New York, NY: Avon Books. Jago, A., & Vroom, V. (1982). Sex difference in the incidence and evaluation of participative leader behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 776-783. Kalin, R., & Hodgins, D. C. (1984). Sex bias in judgments of occupation suitability. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 16 311–325. Kawakami, C., White, J. B., & Langer, E. J. (2000). Mindful and masculine: Freeing women leaders from the constraints of gender roles. Journal of Social Issues, 56 49-63.

PAGE 69

61 Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87 72107. Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory and applications. New York, NY: Academic Press. Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1981). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1989). Cognitive processes in industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1989 (pp. 49-91). Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Macan, T., Detjen, J., & Dickey, J. (1994). Measures of job perceptions: Gender and age of current incumbents, suitability, and job attributes. Sex Roles, 30 55-67. Martell, R. F. (1996). Gender-based bias and discrimination. In P. J. Dubeck & K. Borman (Eds.), Women and work: A handbook (pp. 329-332). New York, NY: Garland. Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1983). A methodological review of sex-related access discrimination problems. Sex Roles, 9 825–839. Massengill, D., & DiMarco, N. (1979). Sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics: A current replication. Sex Roles, 5 561-570. Maurer, T. J., & Taylor, M. A. (1994). Is sex by itself enough? An exploration of gender bias issues in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60 231–251.

PAGE 70

62 Mobley, W. H. (1982). Supervisor and employee race and sex effects on performance appraisals: A field study of adverse impact and generalizability. Academy of Management Journal, 25 598–606. Morrison, A. H., White, R. P., & VanVelsor, E. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America’s largest corporations? Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neath, I. (1996). How to improve your teaching evaluations without improving your teaching. Psychological Reports, 78 1363-1372. Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 5, 267–276. Pulakos, E. D., & Wexley, K. N. (1983). The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in manager subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 26 129-139. Pulakos, E. D., White, L. A., Oppler, S. H., & Borman, W. C. (1989). Examination of race and sex effects on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 770–780. Rice, R. W., Instone, D., & Adams, J. (1984). Leader sex, leader success, and leadership process: Two field studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 12-31. Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. (1993). Moderators of sex bias in the performance appraisal process: A cognitive analysis. Journal of Management, 19 113–126.

PAGE 71

63 Ruble, D. N., & Ruble, T. L. (1982). Sex stereotypes. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), In the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping (pp. 188-251). New York, NY: Praeger. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57 743-762. Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 95-100. Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 340344. Schein, V. E., & Mueller, R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. J ournal of Organizational Behavior, 13 439-447. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., & Jacobson, C. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles, 20 103-110. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager – think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17 33-41. Schwab, D. P., Heneman, H. G., III, & DeCotiis, T. (1975). Behaviorally anchored rating scales: A review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 28 549-562. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86 420-428.

PAGE 72

64 Sidanius, J., & Crane, M. (1989). Job evaluation and gender: The case of university faculty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19 174–197. Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47 149-155. Spector, P. E. (2003). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 207–218. Stephan, W. G. (1989). A cognitive approach to stereotyping. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice (pp. 37–57). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Stigmas in organizations: Race, handicaps, and physical unattractiveness. In K. Kelly (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 385-444). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Swim, J. K. (1994). Perceived versus meta-analytic effect sizes: An assessment of the accuracy of gender stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 21-36. Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 105 409–429.

PAGE 73

65 Swim, J. K., & Sanna, L. J. (1996). He’s skilled, she’s lucky: A meta-analysis of observers’ attributions for women’s and men’s successes and failures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 507–519. Terborg, J. R. (1977). Women in management: A research review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 647-664. Tomkiewicz, J., Brenner, O. C., & Adeyemi-Bello, T. (1998). The impact of perceptions and stereotypes on the managerial mobility of African Americans. Journal of Social Psychology, 138 66-92. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1996). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Statistical abstract of the United States Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (1992). National center for education statistics, national study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National center for education statistics, national study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). National center for education statistics, national study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

PAGE 74

66 U.S. Department of Education. (2002). National center for education statistics, American association of university professors, the annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2000-2001 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wiley, M. G., & Eskilson, A. (1985). Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success: What if women talk more like men? Sex Roles, 12 993-1007. Williams, C. L. (1989). Gender difference at work: Women and men in nontraditional occupations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1988). Employee responses: Gender or job-related differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32 366–383.

PAGE 75

67 Appendixes

PAGE 76

68 Appendix A: Female Stereotypical Characteristics Highest Percentage of Participants Indica ting a Characteristic is Stereotypical Total Sample Male Participants Female Participants Characteristics N =690 n =160 n =530 Sympathetic* 86.67 77.50 89.43 Aware of feelings of others 78.84 68.13 82.08 Sentimental 78.70 73.75 80.19 Neat 76.81 68.75 79.25 Talkative 74.64 72.50 75.28 Humanitarian values 72.46 70.63 73.02 Values pleasant surroundings 69.71 60.63 72.45 Understanding 69.13 53.13 73.96 Fearful 66.96 67.74 64.38 Submissive 65.65 65.00 65.85 Stereotypical characteristic utilizing Broverman et al. ( 1972) criteria.

PAGE 77

69 Appendix B: Female “Non-Stereotypical” Characteristics Lowest Percentage of Participants Indica ting a Characteristic is Stereotypical Total Sample Male Participants Female Participants Characteristics N =690 n =160 n =530 Authoritative 6.81 6.88 6.79 High need for power 6.81 9.38 6.04 Dominant 6.96 10.63 5.85 Aggressive 7.54 10.00 6.79 Feelings not easily hurt 8.41 11.88 7.36 Vulgar 8.99 10.63 8.49 Firm 9.28 7.50 9.81 Competitive 9.57 8.75 9.81 Industrious 9.86 11.25 9.43 Adventurous 10.14 10.63 10.00 Forceful 10.29 14.38 9.06 Hides emotion 11.59 12.50 11.32 Speedy recovery from emotional disturbance 12.32 9.38 13.21 Assertive 12.61 11.25 13.02

PAGE 78

70 Appendix C: Male Stereotypical Characteristics Highest Percentage of Participants Indica ting a Characteristic is Stereotypical Total Sample Male Participants Female Participants Characteristics N =690 n =160 n =530 Feelings not easily hurt 76.67 74.38 77.36 High need for power 75.51 71.25 76.79 Dominant* 75.51 76.25 75.28 Aggressive 74.93 73.75 75.28 Authoritative 72.46 75.00 71.70 Speedy recovery from emotional disturbance 71.16 73.75 70.38 Hides emotion 69.57 66.88 70.38 Forceful 69.42 67.50 70.00 Vulgar 67.68 68.13 67.55 Competitive 66.23 66.25 66.23 Stereotypical characteristic utilizing Broverman et al. ( 1972) criteria.

PAGE 79

71 Appendix D: Male “Non-Stereotypical” Characteristics Lowest Percentage of Participants Indica ting a Characteristic is Stereotypical Total Sample Male Participants Female Participants Characteristics N =690 n =160 n =530 Sympathetic 4.78 8.75 3.58 Humanitarian values 5.22 9.38 3.96 Aware of feelings of others 5.80 13.75 3.40 Neat 6.09 11.88 4.34 Kind 6.81 11.25 5.47 Talkative 6.96 6.88 6.98 Sentimental 7.39 9.38 6.79 Values pleasant surroundings 7.54 14.38 5.47 Interested in own appearance 8.12 11.25 7.17 Sophisticated 8.41 16.88 5.85 Understanding 9.13 18.75 6.23 Grateful 9.28 18.75 6.42 Generous 9.86 16.88 7.74 Strong need for security 10.29 13.13 9.43 Desire for friendship 10.29 21.88 6.79

PAGE 80

72 Appendix E: Actual Professor/Instructor Characteristics Professor/Instructor 2 6 13 18 14 16 12 Average Intelligent 4.80 4.56 4.51 5.00 4.54 4.79 4.76 4.60 Competent 4.80 4.31 4.42 5.00 4.20 4.36 4.62 4.37 Consistent 4.80 4.28 4.20 4.00 4.16 3.93 4.64 4.36 Well informed 4.60 4.19 4.31 5.00 4.16 4.29 4.53 4.34 Helpful 4.80 4.31 4.49 5.00 4.06 4.29 4.53 4.28 Logical 4.80 3.93 4.09 5.00 4.26 4.14 4.29 4.24 Talkative 4.40 4.79 4.18 4.00 4.23 4.29 4.36 4.24 Courteous 4.20 4.24 4.45 5.00 4.21 4.21 4.41 4.23 Understanding 4.40 4.41 4.49 4.00 3.96 4.21 4.55 4.22 Leadership Ability 4.80 4.50 4.04 5.00 3.81 4.29 4.50 4.22 Self-controlled 4.60 4.01 4.16 5.00 4.32 4.29 4.38 4.21 Mean (For all 92 items) 3.61 3.51 3.43 3.38 3.33 3.47 3.43 3.42 SD (For all 92 items) 1.21 0.78 0.75 1.66 0.70 0.87 0.96 0.74 N 6 92 48 1 68 20 35 801 Prof. Gender F F F F F F F Prof. Age Y Y Y Y Y O O Note. Gender (F = Female); Age (Y = Younger, O = Older).

PAGE 81

73 Appendix E: (Continued) Professor/Instructor 10 7 1 15 17 5 11 4 8 9 3 Intelligent 5.00 4.614.574.714.57 4.674.584.67 4.44 4.804.59 Competent 4.50 4.354.404.424.19 5.004.304.54 4.36 4.604.26 Consistent 5.00 4.544.384.514.43 4.674.314.40 4.27 5.004.23 Well informed 5.00 4.384.284.424.36 5.004.354.48 4.22 5.004.39 Helpful 5.00 4.444.184.514.34 4.504.174.21 4.18 4.803.93 Logical 4.75 4.284.404.564.19 4.674.124.24 4.18 5.004.33 Talkative 5.00 3.854.224.043.62 3.834.614.23 4.33 4.003.92 Courteous 4.75 4.154.214.554.17 4.334.014.07 4.16 4.804.17 Understanding 5.00 4.234.234.364.24 4.804.184.13 3.91 4.403.89 Leadership Ability 4.75 4.204.144.024.02 4.504.404.33 4.27 4.404.01 Self-controlled 4.75 4.214.254.254.36 4.334.104.27 3.93 4.604.22 Mean 3.53 3.453.443.443.40 3.563.453.40 3.36 3.363.30 SD 1.24 0.710.810.780.75 1.090.750.78 0.62 1.130.76 N 5 60 72 64 52 7 78 75 58 10 50 Prof. Gender M M M M M M M M M M M Prof. Age Y Y Y Y Y O O O O O O Note. Gender (M = Male); Age (Y = Younger, O = Older).

PAGE 82

74 Appendix F: “Effective Professor” Stereotypical Characteristics Characteristics Total Sample N =388 Male Participants n =177 Female Participants n =211 Intelligent* 96.39 95.48 97.16 Helpful* 94.07 92.66 95.26 Understanding* 93.81 92.66 94.79 Consistent* 93.30 90.40 95.73 Leadership Ability* 93.30 90.40 95.73 Logical* 91.24 89.83 92.42 Persistent* 91.75 93.22 90.52 Self-controlled* 89.95 87.01 92.42 Self-confident* 89.69 89.27 90.05 Stereotypical characteristic utilizing Broverman et al. ( 1972) criteria. Also rated as stereotypical of effective professors: Well informed* 89.43%; Competent* 88.14%; Courteous* 87.89%; Assertive* 87.37%; Prompt* 87.11%; Creative* 86.86%; Decisive*, 86.34%; Aware of feelings of others*, 86.08%; Emotionally Stable*, 85.05%; Direct*, 84.79%; Steady*, 83.51%; Sociable*, 83.25%; Kind*, 82.99%; Desires responsibility*, 82.73%; Analytical ability*, 82.47%; Cheerful*, 82.47%; Ambitious*, 82.22%; Intuitive*, 80.93%; Able to separate feelings from ideas*, 80.67%; and SelfReliant*, 79.64%.

PAGE 83

75 Appendix G: Gender-Role Stereotype Survey Informed Consent Form Dear participant: Thank you for participating in this study. I am interested in understanding how people perceive men and women. This is part one of a three part study. If you complete all three parts of this study, you will receive a bonus point of extra credit (where applicable). In this part of the study, you will complete two surveys containing a series of descriptive terms commonly used to describe people in general and a demographic questionnaire. You will be asked to rate the descriptive terms as to how characteristic or uncharacteristic you feel they are. This study should take approximately 7-10 minutes to complete. Three linking questions will be posed at the end of the survey which will allow your responses on this part of the study to be linked to your responses from other parts of the study. I will not ask for your name or any other personally identifying information; therefore, participation is completely anonymous. All information published will represent the group as a whole. No individual data will be published. By completing the survey and the demographic questionnaire, you are providing your consent to participate in this research. If, at any time during the study, you no longer wish to continue your participation, simply stop answering the questions and return the survey packet to the researcher. There will be no negative consequences associated with failing to complete the study. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact me at JDorio@mail.usf.edu I greatly appreciate your help in this research effort. In appreciation for your participation, I would like to offer you a copy of the results when the study is completed. If you are interested in the results, please contact me at JDorio@mail.usf.edu Thank you, Jay M. Dorio, M.Ed. Department of Psychology University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Ave, PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620-7200 JDorio@mail.usf.edu

PAGE 84

76 Appendix G: (Continued) Please read these instructions carefully. On the following pages you will find a series of descriptive terms commonly used to describe people in general. Some of the terms are positive in connotation, others are negative, and some are neither very positive nor very negative. I would like you to use this list to tell me what you think Women in general are like. In making your judgments, it might be helpful to imagine you are about to meet a person for the first time and the only thing you know in advance is that the person is a Woman Please read the list of descriptive terms on the following pages and circle the number next to each term that corresponds to how characteristic you feel the term is of Women in general. The ratings are to be made according to the following scale: 1 Not characteristic of Women in general 2 Somewhat uncharacteristic of Women in general 3 Neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic of Women in general 4 Somewhat characteristic of Women in general 5 Characteristic of Women in general Please remember there are no “right” or “wrong” answers and no one but the researcher will see your answers. For example: If you think that Assertiveness is characteristic of Women in general then you would circle a 5 as shown below. Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic Assertiveness 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 85

77 Appendix G: (Continued) Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic1Curious123452Consistent123453High need for power123454Sympathetic123455Fearful123456Adventurous123457Leadership Ability123458Values pleasant surroundings123459Neat1234510Uncertain1234511Creative1234512Desire to avoid controversy1234513Submissive1234514Frank1234515Courteous1234516Emotionally Stable1234517Devious1234518Interested in own appearance1234519Independent1234520Desire for friendship1234521Frivolous1234522Intelligent1234523Persistent1234524Vigorous1234525Timid1234526Sophisticated1234527Talkative1234528Strong need for security1234529Forceful1234530Analytical ability1234531Competitive1234532Wavering in decision1234533Cheerful1234534High need for autonomy1234535Able to separate feelings from ideas1234536Competent1234537Understanding1234538Vulgar1234539Sociable1234540Aggressive1234541High self-regard1234542Grateful1234543Easily influenced1234544Exhibitionist1234545Aware of feelings of others1234546Passive12345Please circle the numbers below corresponding to how characteristic you feel the following terms are of a Woman in general.

PAGE 86

78 Appendix G: (Continued) Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic47Objective1234548Speedy recovery from emotional disturbance1234549Shy1234550Firm1234551Prompt1234552Intuitive1234553Humanitarian values1234554Knows the way of the world1234555Dawdler and procrastinator1234556Quarrelsome1234557Industrious1234558Well informed1234559Not uncomfortable about being aggressive1234560Reserved1234561Ambitious1234562Not conceited about appearance1234563Strong need for social acceptance1234564Hasty1234565Obedient1234566Desires responsibility1234567Self-controlled1234568Modest1234569Decisive1234570Nervous1234571Direct1234572Hides emotion1234573Authoritative1234574Self-confident1234575Sentimental1234576Steady1234577Assertive1234578Feelings not easily hurt1234579Dominant1234580Tactful1234581Helpful1234582Strong need for achievement1234583Deceitful1234584Generous1234585Bitter1234586Logical1234587Skilled in business matters1234588Selfish1234589Demure1234590Kind1234591Strong need for monetary rewards1234592Self-reliant12345Please circle the numbers below corresponding to how characteristic you feel the following terms are of a Woman in general.

PAGE 87

79 Appendix G: (Continued) Thank you for completing the first part of this survey. Please note: the second part of this survey focuses on your perceptions of men in general. Please use the following list to tell me what you think Men in general are like. In making your judgments, it might be helpful to imagine you are about to meet a person for the first time and the only thing you know in advance is that the person is a man Please read the list of descriptive terms on the following pages and circle the number next to each term that corresponds to how characteristic you feel the term is of Men in general. The ratings are to be made according to the following scale: 1 Not characteristic of Men in general 2 Somewhat uncharacteristic of Men in general 3 Neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic of Men in general 4 Somewhat characteristic of Men in general 5 Characteristic of Men in general Please remember there are no “right” or “wrong” answers and no one but the researcher will see your answers. For example: If you think that Assertiveness is characteristic of Men in general then you would circle a 5 as shown below. Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic Assertiveness 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 88

80 Appendix G: (Continued) Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic1Curious123452Consistent123453High need for power123454Sympathetic123455Fearful123456Adventurous123457Leadership Ability123458Values pleasant surroundings123459Neat1234510Uncertain1234511Creative1234512Desire to avoid controversy1234513Submissive1234514Frank1234515Courteous1234516Emotionally Stable1234517Devious1234518Interested in own appearance1234519Independent1234520Desire for friendship1234521Frivolous1234522Intelligent1234523Persistent1234524Vigorous1234525Timid1234526Sophisticated1234527Talkative1234528Strong need for security1234529Forceful1234530Analytical ability1234531Competitive1234532Wavering in decision1234533Cheerful1234534High need for autonomy1234535Able to separate feelings from ideas1234536Competent1234537Understanding1234538Vulgar1234539Sociable1234540Aggressive1234541High self-regard1234542Grateful1234543Easily influenced1234544Exhibitionist1234545Aware of feelings of others1234546Passive12345Please circle the numbers below corresponding to how characteristic you feel the following terms are of a Man in general.

PAGE 89

81 Appendix G: (Continued) Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic47Objective1234548Speedy recovery from emotional disturbance1234549Shy1234550Firm1234551Prompt1234552Intuitive1234553Humanitarian values1234554Knows the way of the world1234555Dawdler and procrastinator1234556Quarrelsome1234557Industrious1234558Well informed1234559Not uncomfortable about being aggressive1234560Reserved1234561Ambitious1234562Not conceited about appearance1234563Strong need for social acceptance1234564Hasty1234565Obedient1234566Desires responsibility1234567Self-controlled1234568Modest1234569Decisive1234570Nervous1234571Direct1234572Hides emotion1234573Authoritative1234574Self-confident1234575Sentimental1234576Steady1234577Assertive1234578Feelings not easily hurt1234579Dominant1234580Tactful1234581Helpful1234582Strong need for achievement1234583Deceitful1234584Generous1234585Bitter1234586Logical1234587Skilled in business matters1234588Selfish1234589Demure1234590Kind1234591Strong need for monetary rewards1234592Self-reliant12345Please circle the numbers below corresponding to how characteristic you feel the following terms are of a Man in general.

PAGE 90

82 Appendix G: (Continued) Participant Demographics Please complete the following questions by either placing a check next to your responses or writing them in the spaces provided. The information you provide will be used only for the purposes of this study. 1 What is your age (In years)? 2 What is your sex? ____ Male ____ Female 3 What is your ethnic background? (If "Other", please specify) ____ Alaskan Native ____ American Indian ____ Asian ____ Black or African American ____ Caucasian, Non Hispanic ____ Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ancestry ____ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ____ Other _____________________________ 4 What is your class standing? ____ Freshman ____ Sophomore ____ Junior ____ Senior ____ Graduate Student 5 Are you currently employed? ____ Yes ____ No 6 If not, have you ever been employed? ____ Yes ____ No 7 What is (was) your job title? 8 What industry do (did) you work in? 9 What level is (was) your position? ____ Management ____ Non-Management 10 What gender is (was) your direct supervisor? ____ Male ____ Female 11 What ethnicity is (was) your direct supervisor? ____ Alaskan Native ____ American Indian ____ Asian ____ Black or African American ____ Caucasian, Non Hispanic ____ Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ancestry ____ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ____ Other _____________________________ Tracking Questions Please complete the following tracking questions. The following questions will be used to link your responses on this survey to your responses on parts two and three of the study. These responses can not be used to identify you. The information you provide will be used only for the purposes of this study. 12 What are the last three numbers of your social security number? 13 What are the last three numbers of your home phone number? 14 What are the first three numbers of your street address?

PAGE 91

83 Appendix H: Individual Professor/Instructor Survey Informed Consent Form Dear participant: Thank you for participating in this study. I am interested in understanding how people perceive their professors. This is part two of a three part study. If you complete all three parts of this study, you will receive a bonus point of extra credit (where applicable). In this study, you will complete a survey containing a series of descriptive terms commonly used to describe people in general and a demographic questionnaire. You will be asked to rate the descriptive terms as to how characteristic or uncharacteristic you feel they are. This study should take approximately 5-7 minutes to complete. Three linking questions will be posed at the end of the survey which will allow your responses on this part of the study to be linked to your responses on other parts of the study. I will not ask for your name or any other personally identifying information; therefore, participation is completely anonymous. All information published will represent the group as a whole. No individual data will be published. By completing the survey and the demographic questionnaire, you are providing your consent to participate in this research. If, at any time during the study, you no longer wish to continue your participation, simply stop answering the questions and return the survey packet to the researcher. There will be no negative consequences associated with failing to complete the study. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact me at JDorio@mail.usf.edu I greatly appreciate your help in this research effort. In appreciation for your participation, I would like to offer you a copy of the results when the study is completed. If you are interested in the results, please contact me at JDorio@mail.usf.edu Thank you, Jay M. Dorio, M.Ed. Department of Psychology University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Ave, PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620-7200 JDorio@mail.usf.edu

PAGE 92

84 Appendix H: (Continued) Please read these instructions carefully. On the following pages you will find a series of descriptive terms commonly used to describe people in general. Some of the terms are positive in connotation, others are negative, and some are neither very positive nor very negative. I would like you to use this list to tell me what you think your professor for this class is like. In making your judgments, think about your experience with your professor in class as well as any outside of class contact. It might be helpful to imagine you have to tell another person about your professor when you examine the descriptive terms on the following pages. Please read the list of descriptive terms on the following pages and circle the number next to each term that corresponds to how characteristic you feel the term is of your professor for this class The ratings are to be made according to the following scale: 1 Not characteristic of your professor for this class 2 Somewhat uncharacteristic of your professor for this class 3 Neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic of your professor for this class 4 Somewhat characteristic of your professor for this class 5 Characteristic of your professor for this class Please remember there are no “right” or “wrong” answers and no one but the researcher will see your answers. For example: If you think that Assertiveness is characteristic of your professor for this class then you would circle a 5 as shown below. Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic Assertiveness 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 93

85 Appendix H: (Continued) Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic1Curious123452Consistent123453High need for power123454Sympathetic123455Fearful123456 A dventurous123457Leadership Ability123458Values pleasant surroundings123459Neat1234510Uncertain1234511Creative1234512Desire to avoid controversy1234513Submissive1234514Frank1234515Courteous1234516Emotionally Stable1234517Devious1234518Interested in own appearance1234519Independent1234520Desire for friendship1234521Frivolous1234522Intelli g ent1234523Persistent1234524Vi g orous1234525Timid1234526Sophisticated1234527Talkative1234528Stron g need for securit y 1234529Forceful1234530Analytical ability1234531Competitive1234532Waverin g in decision1234533Cheerful1234534High need for autonomy1234535Able to separate feelings from ideas1234536Competent1234537Understandin g 1234538Vulgar1234539Sociable1234540 Agg ressive1234541Hi g h self-re g ard1234542Grateful1234543Easil y influenced1234544Exhibitionist1234545 A ware of feelin g s of others1234546Passive12345Please circle the numbers below corresponding to how characteristic you feel the following terms are of your professor for this class.

PAGE 94

86 Appendix H: (Continued) Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic47Objective1234548Speedy recovery from emotional disturbance1234549Shy1234550Firm1234551Prompt1234552Intuitive1234553Humanitarian values1234554Knows the way of the world1234555Dawdler and procrastinator1234556Quarrelsome1234557Industrious1234558Well informed1234559Not uncomfortable about being aggressive1234560Reserved1234561Ambitious1234562Not conceited about appearance1234563Strong need for social acceptance1234564Hasty1234565Obedient1234566Desires responsibility1234567Self-controlled1234568Modest1234569Decisive1234570Nervous1234571Direct1234572Hides emotion1234573Authoritative1234574Self-confident1234575Sentimental1234576Steady1234577Assertive1234578Feelings not easily hurt1234579Dominant1234580Tactful1234581Helpful1234582Strong need for achievement1234583Deceitful1234584Generous1234585Bitter1234586Logical1234587Skilled in business matters1234588Selfish1234589Demure1234590Kind1234591Strong need for monetary rewards1234592Self-reliant12345Please circle the numbers below corresponding to how characteristic you feel the following terms are of your professor for this class.

PAGE 95

87 Appendix H: (Continued) Please complete the following questions. The information you provide will be used only for the purposes of this study. 1 What class are you completing this extra credit survey for? 2 What is your professor's name for that class? 3 What is your age (In years)? 4 What is your sex? ____ Male ____ Female 5 What is your ethnic background? (If "Other", please specify) ____ Alaskan Native ____ American Indian ____ Asian ____ Black or African American ____ Caucasian, Non Hispanic ____ Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ancestry ____ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ____ Other _____________________________ v Linking Questions Please complete the following linking questions. The following questions will be used to link your responses on this survey to your responses on parts one and three of the study. These responses can not be used to identify you. The information you provide will be used only for the purposes of this study. 6 What are the last three numbers of your social security number? _____ _____ _____ 7 What are the last three numbers of your home phone number? _____ _____ _____ 8 What are the first three numbers of your street address? _____ _____ _____

PAGE 96

88 Appendix I: University Student Assessment of Instruction

PAGE 97

89 Appendix I: (Continued) Please complete the following questions. The information you provide will be used only for the purposes of this study. Thank you for participating. 1 What are the last three numbers of your social security number? _____ _____ _____ 2 What are the last three numbers of your home phone number? _____ _____ _____ 3 What are the first three numbers of your street address? _____ _____ _____ 4 What is your age (In years)? 5 What is your sex?____ Male ____ Female 6 What is your ethnic background? (If "Other", please specify) ____ Alaskan Native ____ American Indian ____ Asian ____ Black or African American ____ Caucasian, Non Hispanic ____ Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ancestry ____ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ____ Other _____________________________ v

PAGE 98

90 Appendix J: Psychology Department Student Assessment of Instruction

PAGE 99

91 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 100

92 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 101

93 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 102

94 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 103

95 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 104

96 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 105

97 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 106

98 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 107

99 Appendix J: (Continued)

PAGE 108

100 Appendix J: (Continued) Please complete the following questions. The information you provide will be used only for the purposes of this study. Thank you for participating. 1 What are the last three numbers of your social security number? _____ _____ _____ 2 What are the last three numbers of your home phone number? _____ _____ _____ 3 What are the first three numbers of your street address? _____ _____ _____ 4 What is your age (In years)? 5 What is your sex?____ Male ____ Female 6 What is your ethnic background? (If "Other", please specify) ____ Alaskan Native ____ American Indian ____ Asian ____ Black or African American ____ Caucasian, Non Hispanic ____ Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ancestry ____ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ____ Other _____________________________ v

PAGE 109

101 Appendix K: Web-Based “Effective Professor” Survey Informed Consent Form Dear participant: Thank you for participating in this study. I am interested in understanding how people perceive effective professors. In this study, you will complete a survey containing a series of descriptive terms commonly used to describe people in general and a demographic questionnaire. You will be asked to rate the descriptive terms as to how characteristic or uncharacteristic you feel they are. This study should take approximately 10-12 minutes to complete. I will not ask for your name or any other personally identifying information; therefore, participation is completely anonymous. All information published will represent the group as a whole. No individual data will be published. By completing the survey and the demographic questionnaire, you are providing your consent to participate in this research. If, at any time during the study, you no longer wish to continue your participation, simply stop answering the questions and navigate away from the survey. There will be no negative consequences associated with failing to complete the study. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact me at JDorio@mail.usf.edu I greatly appreciate your help in this research effort. In appreciation for your participation, I would like to offer you a copy of the results when the study is completed. If you are interested in the results, please contact me at JDorio@mail.usf.edu Thank you, Jay M. Dorio, M.Ed. Department of Psychology University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Ave, PCD 4118G, Tampa, FL 33620-7200 JDorio@mail.usf.edu Please click here to participate in the study.

PAGE 110

102 Appendix K: (Continued) Thank you again for your interest in participating in this study. Pease read these instructions carefully. Once you click on the link below you will find a series of descriptive terms commonly used to describe people in general. Some of the terms are positive in connotation, others are negative, and some are neither very positive nor very negative. I would like you to use this list to tell me what you think an Effective Professor in general is like. In making your judgments, it might be helpful to imagine you are about to meet a person for the first time and the only thing you know in advance is that the person is an Effective Professor The ratings are to be made according to the following scale: 1 Not characteristic of an Effective Professor in general 2 Somewhat uncharacteristic of an Effective Professor in general 3 Neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic of an Effective Professor in general 4 Somewhat characteristic of an Effective Professor in general 5 Characteristic of an Effective Professor in general Please remember there are no “right” or “wrong” answers and no one but the researcher will see your answers. For example: If you think that Assertiveness is characteristic of Effective Professors in general then you would select th e button below “characteristic.” Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic Assertiveness Please click here to take the survey.

PAGE 111

103 Appendix K: (Continued) Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic1CuriousOOOOO2ConsistentOOOOO3High need for powerOOOOO4SympatheticOOOOO5FearfulOOOOO6AdventurousOOOOO7Leadership AbilityOOOOO8Values pleasant surroundingsOOOOO9NeatOOOOO10UncertainOOOOO11CreativeOOOOO12Desire to avoid controversyOOOOO13SubmissiveOOOOO14FrankOOOOO15CourteousOOOOO16Emotionally StableOOOOO17DeviousOOOOO18Interested in own appearanceOOOOO19IndependentOOOOO20Desire for friendshipOOOOO21FrivolousOOOOO22IntelligentOOOOO23PersistentOOOOO24VigorousOOOOO25TimidOOOOO26SophisticatedOOOOO27TalkativeOOOOO28Strong need for securityOOOOO29ForcefulOOOOO30Analytical abilityOOOOO31CompetitiveOOOOO32Wavering in decisionOOOOO33CheerfulOOOOO34High need for autonomyOOOOO35Able to separate feelings from ideasOOOOO36CompetentOOOOO37UnderstandingOOOOO38VulgarOOOOO39SociableOOOOO40AggressiveOOOOO41High self-regardOOOOO42GratefulOOOOO43Easily influencedOOOOO44ExhibitionistOOOOO45Aware of feelings of othersOOOOO46PassiveOOOOOPlease read the list of descriptive terms below and select the button next to each term that corresponds to how characteristic you feel the term is of an Effective Professor in general.

PAGE 112

104 Appendix K: (Continued) Not Characteristic Somewhat Uncharacteristic Neither Characteristic Nor Uncharacteristic Somewhat Characteristic Characteristic47ObjectiveOOOOO48Speedy recovery from emotional disturbanceOOOOO49ShyOOOOO50FirmOOOOO51PromptOOOOO52IntuitiveOOOOO53Humanitarian valuesOOOOO54Knows the way of the worldOOOOO55Dawdler and procrastinatorOOOOO56QuarrelsomeOOOOO57IndustriousOOOOO58Well informedOOOOO59Not uncomfortable about being aggressiveOOOOO60ReservedOOOOO61AmbitiousOOOOO62Not conceited about appearanceOOOOO63Strong need for social acceptanceOOOOO64HastyOOOOO65ObedientOOOOO66Desires responsibilityOOOOO67Self-controlledOOOOO68ModestOOOOO69DecisiveOOOOO70NervousOOOOO71DirectOOOOO72Hides emotionOOOOO73AuthoritativeOOOOO74Self-confidentOOOOO75SentimentalOOOOO76SteadyOOOOO77AssertiveOOOOO78Feelings not easily hurtOOOOO79DominantOOOOO80TactfulOOOOO81HelpfulOOOOO82Strong need for achievementOOOOO83DeceitfulOOOOO84GenerousOOOOO85BitterOOOOO86LogicalOOOOO87Skilled in business mattersOOOOO88SelfishOOOOO89DemureOOOOO90KindOOOOO91Strong need for monetary rewardsOOOOO92Self-reliantOOOOOPlease read the list of descriptive terms below and select the button next to each term that corresponds to how characteristic you feel the term is of an Effective Professor in general.

PAGE 113

105 Appendix K: (Continued) Demographic Questions Please complete the following demographic questions. The information you provide will be used only for the purposes of this study. 93. What is your age (In years)? 94. What is your sex? Male Female 95. What is your ethnic background? Alaskan Native American Indian Asian Black or African American Caucasian, Non Hispanic Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ancestry Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Other 96. What is your class standing? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student

PAGE 114

106 Appendix K: (Continued) 97. Are you currently employed? Yes No 98. If not, have you ever been employed? Yes No 99. What industry do (did) you work in? 100. What is (was) your job title? 101. What gender is (was) your direct supervisor? Male Female 102. What ethnicity is (was) your direct supervisor? Alaskan Native American Indian Asian Black or African American Caucasian, Non Hispanic Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ancestry Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Other

PAGE 115

107 Appendix K: (Continued) Thank you very much for participating in this study. If you would like additional information regarding any part of this study please contact Jay Dorio at jdorio@mail.usf.edu To return to Experimentrak click here.

PAGE 116

108 Appendix L: Web-Based Performance Evaluation Informed Consent Form Dear participant: Thank you for participating in this study. I am interested in understanding how people rate the performance of their professors. This is part three of a three part study. You will receive a bonus point of extra credit (where applicable) for completing this part of the study. In this study, you will complete a performance evaluation for your professor (of the class you are completing this survey for) and a short demographic questionnaire. This study should take approximately 5-7 minutes to complete. Three linking questions will be posed at the end of the survey which will allow your responses on this part of the study to be linked to your responses from other parts of the study. I will not ask for your name or any other personally identifying information; therefore, participation is completely anonymous. All information published will represent the group as a whole. No individual data will be published. By completing the evaluation and the demographic questionnaire, you are providing your consent to participate in this research. If, at any time during the study, you no longer wish to continue your participation, simply stop answering the questions and navigate away from the survey. There will be no negative consequences associated with failing to complete the study. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact me at JDorio@mail.usf.edu I greatly appreciate your help in this research effort. In appreciation for your participation, I would like to offer you a copy of the results when the study is completed. If you are interested in the results, please contact me at JDorio@mail.usf.edu Thank you, Jay M. Dorio, M.Ed. Department of Psychology University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Ave, PCD 4118G, Tampa, FL 33620-7200 JDorio@mail.usf.edu Please click here to participate in the study.

PAGE 117

109 Appendix L: (Continued) 1. What class are you completing this extra credit survey for? 2. What is the name of the professor you will be evaluating? Please read and carefully consider the list of items below and select the button next to each item that corresponds to how well you feel your professor performed in each area. Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor 3. Description of course objectives and assignments 4. Communication of ideas and information 5. Expression of expectations for performance in this class 6. Availability to assist students in or out of class 7. Respect and concern for students 8. Stimulation of interest in the course 9. Facilitation of learning 10. Overall assessment of instructor

PAGE 118

110 Appendix L: (Continued) Demographic Questions Please complete the following demographic questions. The information you provide will be used only for the purposes of this study. 11. What is your age (In years)? 12. What is your sex? Male Female 13. What is your ethnic background? Alaskan Native American Indian Asian Black or African American Caucasian, Non Hispanic Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Ancestry Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Other

PAGE 119

111 Appendix L: (Continued) Tracking Questions Please complete the following tracking questions which will be used to link your responses on this survey to your responses on parts one and two of the study. These responses can not be used to identify you so please complete them carefully. The information you provide will be used only for the purposes of this study. 14. What are the last three numbers of your social security number? 15. What are the last three numbers of your home phone number? 16. What are the first three numbers of your street address?

PAGE 120

112 Appendix L: (Continued) Thank you very much for participating in this study. For completing all three parts of the study, you will be awarded a bonus extra credit point. If you would like additional information regarding any part of this study please contact Jay Dorio at jdorio@mail.usf.edu To return to Experimentrak click here.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001709506
003 fts
005 20060614112131.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 060510s2005 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001340
035
(OCoLC)68621379
SFE0001340
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (Online)
1 100
Dorio, Jay M.
4 245
The impact of gender-role stereotypes and the sex-typing of the professor job on performance evaluations in higher education
h [electronic resource] /
by Jay M. Dorio.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
2005.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 120 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: The present study examined the influences of gender-role stereotypes, gender-role congruity, and the sex-typing of the professor job on performance evaluations of university educators in actual classroom settings. Participants used the Schein Descriptive Index (Schein, 1973) to define gender-role stereotypes, characteristics of their professor/instructor, and the characteristics of an "Effective Professor." Participants used a behavior summary scale (BSS) formatted student assessment of instruction to evaluate their professors/instructors performance after a full semester of class participation. It was hypothesized that a pro-male bias would exist in the sex-typing of the professor job, and that combined with the gender-role stereotypes of participants and the gender-role congruity of professors/instructors, would influence performance evaluations.In support of hypothesized relationships, results demonstrated that male and female participants hold different gender-role stereotypes of Men and Women, that the professor job is sex-typed in favor of men for male participants, and that gender-role stereotypes and the gender-role congruity of actual professors/instructors can influence performance evaluation ratings. Contrary to previous research and hypothesized relationships, the sex-typing of the professor job was not significantly related to performance evaluation scores. Additionally, results of regression analyses revealed no gender differences in performance evaluation ratings; however, age differences were found, in favor of older professors/instructors. Possible explanations for obtained results, as well as study limitations, are discussed.
590
Adviser: Dr. Walter Borman.
653
Discrimination.
Gender-role.
Congruity.
Glass-ceiling.
Gender ideology.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1340