Four studies tested a model of stereotype-based shifts in judgment standards developed by M. Biernat, M. Manis, and T. E. Nelson (1991). The model suggests that subjective judgments of target persons from different social groups may fail to reveal the stereotyped expectations of judges, because they invite the use of different evaluative standards; more "objective" or common rule indicators reduce such standard shifts. The stereotypes that men are more competent than women, women are more verbally able than men, Whites are more verbally able than Blacks, and Blacks are more athletic than Whites were successfully used to demonstrate the shifting standards phenomenon. Several individual-difference measures were also effective in predicting differential susceptibility to standard shifts, and direct evidence was provided that differing comparison standards account for substantial differences in target ratings.

People routinely adjust their subjective judgment standards as they evaluate members of stereotyped social groups. Such shifts are less likely to occur, however, when judgments are made on stable, "objective" response scales. In 3 studies, subjects judged a series of targets with respect to a number of gender-relevant attributes (e.g. t height, weight, and income), using either subjective (Likert-type) or objective response scales (e.g., inches, pounds, and dollars). Objective judgments were consistently influenced by sex stereotypes; subjective judgments were not. Results were also consistent with the expectation that when a judgment attribute is unrelated to gender, male and female targets evoke the same judgment standards. A schematic model of how stereotyped mental representations are expressed on subjectively defined rating scales is presented, and implications for the study of person perception are discussed. This research was supported by a grant from the Veterans Administration.We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Chris Crandall, Barry Schlenker, Roger Blashfield, and several anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft.

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

No abstract

We investigated the influence of gender and parental status on employment decisions. The shifting standards model predicts that parenthood polarizes judgments of women and men such that mothers are held to stricter employment standards than fathers. Social role theory predicts that parenting role, rather than gender, guides judgments of mothers and fathers. One hundred ninety-six undergraduates at two universities evaluated a job applicant; the applicant was either male or female and was either single or married with two children. Results showed that parents were judged less agentic and less committed to employment than non-parents. Parental status also interacted with gender, indicating that fathers were held to more lenient standards than mothers and childless men. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.Considerable research on stereotyping shows that an individual's gender affects the judgments that are made about him or her. Consistent with stereotypes,

Stereotyping effects are typically considered to be assimilative in nature: A member of a group stereotyped as having some attribute is judged to have more of that attribute than a member of some comparison group. This article highlights the fact that stereotyping effects can also occur in the direction of contrast--or even null effects-- depending on the nature and form of the outcome being assessed (from the researcher's perspective, the dependent variable of interest). Relying on theory and research from the shifting standards model (M. Biernat, M. Manis, & T. F. Nelson, 1991), this review highlights the different ways in which and the factors that determine how stereotypes influence judgment and behavior toward individual group members.

We surveyed over 1,000 undergraduates about their attitudes toward fatness and fat people. A consistent pattern of attitudes emerged: People who were anti‐fat shared an ideologically conservative outlook on life. Those who disliked fatness tended to be politically conservative, racist, in favor of capital punishment, and less supportive of nontraditional marriages. By contrast, negative attitudes toward fatness were not associated with conservative sexual attitudes (which are less likely to be ideologically based), although they were related to less tolerance of sexuality among the handicapped, homosexuals, and the elderly. Antifat attitudes seem to be based on ideology, and not on one's own weight situation: Anti‐fat attitudes were virtually unrelated to one's own degree of fatness. The relationship between ideology and anti‐fat attitudes was stronger among men than among women, which indicates that a variety of other, perhaps more self‐relevant factors, play into the anti‐fat attitudes of women. For example, when women held a conservative, anti‐fat ideology, and were in the heaviest weight group, they suffered from low self‐esteem. This relationship did not hold for men, indicating that the relationship between ideology and self‐derogation may be based on the greater self‐relevance weight holds for women. In a second study, we found that anti‐fat attitudes were substantially correlated with authoritarianism, indicating that prejudice against fat people may be another manifestation of a collection of political and social attitudes predicated on conventionalism and a narrow latitude of acceptance of others' behaviors.

A sample of 139 married couples with young children and with relatively equal status careers (wives were university professors or businesswomen) were interviewed about work and home life. Considerable, traditional inequity in the distribution of child-care tasks and chore responsibility was noted, but women were generally satisfied with their husbands' home involvement. In the academic sample, the longer hours each spouse worked, the more child care the other performed; in the business sample, child-care involvement was largely determined by the husband's work hours, income, and education. Overall, women were more self-critical than were men about their performance in home roles, and women's role performance was rated more highly by husbands than by themselves. Women professionals' continued use of traditional sex role standards and the importance of attending to both partners' perspectives in studies of married life are discussed.