Twenty-four male and 24 female undergraduates played two consecutive 30trial games of "Chicken," one with a male and one with a female other player. Prior to the experiment each participant was given information which suggested that the two others whom he subsequently played against were either inferior, equal, or superior to him in game-related skills. On every trial, the subject was required to make a choice and also to predict the other's choice. However, on only 4 out of 30 trials was the subject given information about the other's choices, and this information was prearranged to match the subject's own game behavior (the tit-for-tat treatment). Subjects tended to choose red, which offered a maximum gain to themselves while reducing the payoffs of the other, more often against a male than against a female, and also more often in the second game than in the first. Several significant interactions between sex of subject, sex of other, and order of game were found. In addition, an examination of prediction and choice combinations revealed that choosing black while predicting red ("submission") was significantly more frequent toward superior others than toward equal or inferior others, and occurred more often in males than in females. The expectation that males would be generally more competitive than females was not supported.
Many indices of interrater agreement on binary tasks have been proposed to assess reliability, but none has escaped criticism. In a series of Monte Carlo simulations, five such indices were evaluated using , an unbiased indicator of raters' ability to distinguish between the true presence or absence of the characteristic being judged. and, to a lesser extent, coefficients performed best across variations in characteristic prevalence, and raters' expertise and bias. Correlations with for , Scott's, and Gwet's were markedly lower. In situations where two raters make a series of binary judgments, the findings suggest that researchers should choose or to assess interrater agreement as the superiority of these indices was least influenced by variations in the decision environment and characteristics of the decision makers.
In the first of 2 telephone-survey studies, factor analysis of the attitudes of 159 respondents revealed a general conservatism factor and two forms of liberalism, traditional and radical. Conservatism increased with age, traditional liberalism was strongest in women and middleaged persons, and radical liberalism was stronger in men and decreased with age. In the second study, 240 respondents estimated the attitudes of a young, middle-aged, or old male or female target. Evidence of an "old-is-conservative" stereotype was clearest among young participants. Among old participants, the stereotype was evident only when the target was male. People associated traditional liberalism more with women than with men and radical liberalism more with men than with women. Both kinds of liberalism were expected to decrease with age. The authors conclude that age plays as important a role as gender in the attitude impressions people form during initial encounters.
Studies were undertaken to assess the accuracy of people's estimates of the attitudes of men and women. In the first study, we assessed attitudes of male and female university students on a broad range of social and political issues. In the second, we asked new participants to estimate the attitudes of typical males and females on the same statements. These estimates were used to select a set of stereotypic male statements and a set of stereotypic female statements. In the third study, participants estimated the attitudes of male and female students on the two sets of statements. The results of the first two studies indicated that both men and women expected larger gender differences in attitudes than actually exist. In the third study, we confirmed this result and found that people were least accurate in their estimates of the attitudes of men. Partial support was obtained for the hypothesis that in-group stereotypes would be more accurate than out-group stereotypes. Men were more accurate than women in estimating the attitudes of men but men and women were equally accurate in estimating the attitudes of women. The picture of stereotype accuracy for gender-based judgments of attitudes that emerges from our research is more complicated than earlier research would suggest.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.