Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Turner, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Pratkanis, A. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Turner, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Pratkanis, A. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-58 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167293191006
© 1993 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Effects of Preferential and Meritorious Selection on Performance: An Examination of Intuitive and Self-Handicapping Perspectives

Marlene F. Turner

SanJose State University

Anthony R. Pratkanis

University of California, Santa Cruz

Research has documented pervasive adverse consequences of preferential selection for women's self-evaluations of ability and performance. However, virtually no research has examined the effects of selection processes on actual performance. It was theorized that the effects of preferential and meritorious selection on performance are moderated by task conceptualization. Females were told that they were assigned to a position because of either merit (they purportedly passed a qualifying test) or preference (they were female) and that task performance required either effort or inherent capability. Preferentially selected women performed better when they believed the task required capability rather than effort; meritoriously selected individuals displayed the opposite pattern. In addition, preferentially selected subjects evaluated specific components of their performance effectiveness more poorly than meritoriously selected subjects. Self-evaluations of overall performance were unaffected by the manipulations. Results are interpreted using research on self-handicapping and recipient reactions to aid.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceHome page
S. B. Malos
The New Affirmative Action: Socioeconomic Preference Criteria in College Admissions
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, March 1, 2000; 36(1): 5 - 22.
[Abstract] [PDF]