Several authors (e.g., J.T. Austin & H.J. Klein, 1996; R. Kanfer, 1990b, 1992) have urged researchers to examine comprehensive models of distal individual differences as predictors of proximal motivational processes and performance. Two field studies in an academic setting tested a model of relationships among trait-like individual differences (cognitive ability, general self-efficacy, and goal orientation), state-like individual differences (state anxiety, task-specific self-efficacy, and goals), and learning performance. Most hypothesized relationships among these constructs received support when tested on 2 samples, when examining different performance episodes, and when using different goal orientation and state-anxiety measures. In general, state-like individual differences were found to mediate the relationships between trait-like individual differences and learning performance. Implications of these results are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.

Sex‐typed college students (16 males and 16 females) and androgynous college students (16 males and 16 females) evaluated the resumes of fictitious applicants for a managerial position described as requiring interpersonal competencies. The applicant's physical attractiveness, qualifications, and sex were systematically varied in the resumes. Five‐way analyses of variance were performed on the hiring decisions about the applicants and the perceived attractiveness, masculinity, femininity, and social desirability of the applicants. Hiring preferences were shown for attractive over unattractive applicants, for wellqualified over less qualified applicants, and among these preferred groups, males were favored over females. The subject's sex‐role orientation predictably moderated the effect of the applicant's attractiveness but not the effect of the applicant's sex. Sex‐typed subjects committed “beautyism” more than androgynous subjects did. The applicants' sex, qualifications, and attractiveness affected how they were perceived in terms of sex‐role attributes as well as sex‐irrelevant, socially desirable traits. Theoretical implications and suggestions for further research are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract