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,