What's Good for the Goose Is Not Good for the Gander

Abstract

As women and minorities enter occupations traditionally closed to them, they are increasingly likely to occupy positions of solo status (i.e., to be either the only member or one of a small number of their sex or ethnic group in a work situation). In this article, we consider the consequences of having solo status. We report the results of an experiment that varied the sex composition of task-oriented groups. The consequences of having solo status were markedly different for solo males and solo females. Solo females were unlikely to be group leaders; overall group satisfaction was lowest when a solo female was present; and gender-related issues were most likely to be raised in groups including a solo female. Solo males, on the other hand, tended to be integrated into the group as leaders, resulting in smoother group functioning. The implications of having solo status in terms of opportunity for professional advancement are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

KANTER, R. M. (1977) ”Some effects of proportion on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women.”Amer. J. of Sociology 82: 965-990.

McARTHUR, L. Z. (1981) “What grabs you? The role of attention in impression formation and causal attribution,” in E. T. Higgins , P. Herman , and M. P. Zanna (eds.) Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McGUIRE, W. J. , and A. PADAWA-SINGER (1978) “Trait salience in the spontaneous self-concept.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology 33: 743-754.

McGUIRE, W. J. , C. V. McGUIRE , and W. WINTON (1979) “Effects of household sex composition on the salience of one's gender on the spontaneous self-concept.”J. of Experimental Social Psychology 15: 77-90.

RUBLE, D. N. and T. L. RUBLE (1982) “Sex stereotypes”, in A. G. Miller (ed.) In the Eye of the Beholder: Contemporary Issues in Stereotyping. New York: Praeger.

SCOTT, R. R. (1983) “Structural influences on intergroup relations: multilevel effects.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim.

SNEDECOR, G. W. and W. G. COCHRAN (1967) Statistical Methods. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.

SPANGLER, E. , M. A. GORDON , and R. M. PIPKIN (1978) “Token women: an empirical test of the Kanter hypothesis.”Amer. J. of Sociology 84: 160-170.

TAYLOR, S. E. (1981) “A categorization approach to stereotyping,” in D. L. Hamilton (ed.) Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

TAYLOR, S. E. and S. T. FISKE (1978) “Salience, attention, and attribution: top of the head phenomena”, in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press.

11.

TAYLOR, S. E. (1975) “Point of view and perceptions of causality.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology 32: 439-445.

12.

TAYLOR, S. E., M. CLOSE, C. ANDERSON, and A. RUDERMAN (1975) “Solo status as a psychological variable: the power of being distinctive.” Harvard University. (unpublished)

13.

UNGER, R. K. (1978) “The politics of gender: a review of relevant literature,” in J. Sherman and F. Denmark (eds.) Psychology of Women: Future Directions of Research. New York: Psychological Dimensions.

14.

WOLMAN, C. and H. FRANK (1975) “The solo woman in a professional peer group.”Amer. J. of Orthopsychiatry 45: 164-171.