This article explores the outcomes of solo status and the processes by which solos are evaluated within a group decision-making context. Six-person groups of varying gender composition were given a task to solve individually and as a group. Following group discussion, participants evaluated themselves and their groupmates on task-oriented and social-oriented skills. Unlike previous research, solo women were evaluated positively by their groupmates, and they suffered no performance decrements resulting from solo status. Furthermore, the evaluations solo women received accurately reflected their contributions to the group, although men's favorable evaluations in their groups were not similarly explained. Results are discussed in terms of a model in which social reality mediates the relationship between women's solo status and outcome, whereas perceiver stereotyping may contribute to favorable evaluations of men.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, L. R., & Ager, J. W. (1978). Analysis of variance in small group research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 341-345.
2.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
4.
Biernat, M., Crandall, C. S., Young, L. V., Kobrynowicz, D., & Halpin, S. M. (1998). All that you can be: Stereotyping of self and others in a military context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 301-317.
5.
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544-557.
6.
Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Nelson, T. F. (1991). Comparison and expectancy processes in human judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 203-211.
7.
Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (1993). Categorization and stereotyping: Effects of group context on memory and social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 166-202.
8.
Bradley, P. H. (1980). Sex, competence and opinion deviation: An expectation states approach. Communication Monographs, 47, 101-110.
9.
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Cammalleri, J. A., Hendrick, H. W., Pittman, W. C., Blout, H. D., &Prather, C. C. (1973). Effects of different leadership styles on group accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 32-37.
11.
Carli, L. L. (1991). Gender, status, and influence. In E. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 8, pp. 89-113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
13.
Cohen, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1995). The differential impact of gender roles on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 876-884.
14.
Craig, J. M., & Sherif, C. W. (1986). The effectiveness of men and women in problem-solving groups as a function of group gender composition. Sex Roles, 14, 453-466.
15.
Craig, K. M., & Rand, K. A. (1998). The perceptually “privileged” group member: Consequences of solo status for African Americans and Whites in task groups. Small Group Research, 29, 339-358.
16.
Crocker, J., & McGraw, K. M. (1984). What's good for the goose is not good for the gander. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 357-369.
17.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 60, 685-710.
18.
Folger, J. P. (1980). The effects of vocal participation and questioning behavior on perceptions of dominance. Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 203-207.
19.
Hampton, C. (1994). Two's company: A study of gender solos. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
20.
Jemmott, J. B., III, & Gonzales, E. (1989). Social status, the status distribution, and performance in small groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 584-598.
21.
Jussim, L. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model. Psychological Review, 98, 54-73.
22.
Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
23.
Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990.
24.
Lord, C. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 918-926.
25.
McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., & Winton, W. (1978). Effects of household sex composition on the salience of one's gender in the spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 77-90.
26.
McGuire, W. J., & Padawa-Singer, A. (1978). Trait salience in the spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 743-754.
27.
Meeker, B. F., & Weitzel-O'Neill, P. A. (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 42, 91-105.
28.
Miller, C. T., Rothblum, E. D., Felicio, D., & Brand, P. (1995). Compensating for stigma: Obese and nonobese women's reactions to being visible. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1093-1106.
29.
Ott, E. M. (1989). Effects of the male-female ratio at work. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 41-57.
30.
Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Wiggens Noe, A. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263-267.
31.
Saenz, D. S. (1994). Token status and problem-solving deficits: Detrimental effects of distinctiveness and performance monitoring. Social Cognition, 12, 61-74.
32.
Smith-Lovin, L., & Brody, C. (1989). Interruptions in group discussions: The effects of gender and group composition. American Sociological Review, 54, 424-435.
33.
Spangler, E., Gordon, M. A., & Pipkin, R. M. (1978). Token women: An empirical test of Kanter's hypothesis. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 160-170.
34.
Swim, J. K., Aiken, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214.
35.
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.
36.
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778-793.
37.
Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Forces, 39, 253-267.
38.
Wolman, C., & Frank, H. (1975). The solo woman in a professional peer group. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 164-171.
