source |
An adult might have told me that was silly - how many boys
vs. girls were in my group didn’t matter. However, recent research suggests
that the gender composition of a group does matter. Though it doesn’t matter in
terms of impacting actual performance, it can influence how group members think
about one another and about their group as a whole. Because I love research
that examines people in their natural (or somewhat natural) environments when
they are interacting with other people, let’s take a look at how the
researchers demonstrated this.
To study how groups are evaluated based on their gender composition, social psychologist Tessa West and colleagues created 5-person groups of management students who had recently met. Some of the groups had 2 women and 3 men, some had 3 women and 2 men, and some had 4 women and 1 man. The groups were all in the same classroom at the same time, and they were asked to complete a male-typed cooperative task together as fast as they could.
source |
After completing the task, each participant was asked to
evaluate his or her group mates, as well as the group as a whole. Results
showed that there were no differences in performance on the task as a function
of gender composition: groups with more women in them did not perform any worse
than groups with more men in them. However, as the proportion of women
in the group increased, participants rated their own group members more
negatively, regardless of the gender of the members. In addition, as the
proportion of women in the group increased, the less effective participants thought
their groups were – even though gender composition did not predict performance.
Ten weeks after completing the
cooperative task, participants were asked how interested they were in working
with their group again. Overall, people who remembered their group performing better were more interested in working with their group again. Even when adjusting for this effect, though, as the proportion of women in the group
increased, the less the group wanted to work together again when asked at this ten-week follow-up.
One of the interesting aspects of this research is that it
is not outsiders who are evaluating men more harshly when they are in groups
with more women. Instead, men and women within the groups are judging their own group mates more harshly when their groups have a greater
proportion of women.
source |
Why does this happen? It may be because
of a process known as stigma-by-association. This occurs when the stigma
associated with one person spreads to an associated individual. For example, if
a thin man were married to an overweight woman, the stigma attached to the
woman because of her weight (e.g., that she is lazy) might also “leak” to her
husband. By being associated with her, others might also perceive him as being
lazy. When it comes to gender, we are all familiar with stereotypes of women as
being less efficient and less competent than men, especially on male-typed
tasks. For a male/female pair in the workplace, then, the man might be
evaluated as less competent (due to his connection with a female) than had he
been working with another man.
This work highlights a potential, unintended consequence of
diversity in the workplace. In the future, the researchers are hoping to
disentangle whether these effects are due to different behaviors of men and
women (e.g., more talking during the task) or to differences in perception of
men and women. Hopefully, by demonstrating that bias can operate in this hidden
way and affect groups and not just individuals, researchers can figure out how
to ameliorate these effects.
Reference:
Employing a two-by-two factorial design that manipulates whether dictator groups are single or mixed-sex and whether procedures are single or double-blind, we examine gender effect in a standard dictator game. No gender effect was found in any of the experimental treatments. Moreover, neither single- versus mixed-sex groups nor level of anonymity had any impact on either male or female behavior. http://psychologyschoolinfo.com/
ReplyDeleteThis research seems to highlight short-term performance on one task. In the book "Selected", Mark van Vugt refers to research that analyzed the performance of companies in the long term, and IIRC a 50/50 gender composition in the members of the board is for the best - too much either way was bad.
ReplyDeleteI'll look up the book tonight, see if I can find the exact passage + research cited.
What is a "male-typed" task? Regardless, this posting made me wonder if the same results would hold for a "female-typed" task, if there is such thing clinically defined.
ReplyDelete