Women have gained a greater voice today thanks to the efforts of feminists who are committed to securing respect and recognition for women. Despite the progress that has been made, women continue to endure hardships. For example, women are subjected to harsh standards and expectations. Moreover, they do not receive fair compensation and recognition for their effort. The double standards that are applied in the evaluation of men and women are the subject of a study that Martha Foschi conducted.
Main research questions
The role that gender plays in the evaluation of competence is the key subject that Foschi explores in her article. She does not explicitly state the research questions. However, these questions can be inferred from the hypotheses that she sets out to test. The first hypothesis concerns external evaluation. Foschi posits that when women engage in a task, their performance is judged harshly and they tend to receive a negative review compared to their male counterparts. The second hypothesis focuses on self-evaluation. This hypothesis posits that despite performing equally to their female counterparts, men apply lenient standards to evaluate their performance. The application of these standards yields results which suggest that the men are more competent. So, from these hypotheses, the main research questions that Foschi attempts to answer concern the impact that double standards have on evaluation. Do the lenient standards applied to men disadvantage women while favoring the men?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Variables
Gender was the main independent variable. The participants were either male or female. Task performance and ratings on how the participants performed were the dependent variables. The researchers required the participants to share how they felt about their own performance and the performance of their colleagues from the opposite gender.
Theoretical perspectives
Foschi understood that a theoretical framework would set the stage for her experiment and subsequent discussion. She bases her discussion on the expectation states theory. The primary premise of this theory is that task performance is linked to prestige and hierarchy. Those who perform well in a given task rank higher and enjoy prestige. The higher performers are also regarded as competent. On the other hand, poor performers suffer a tainted image and rank lower. Foschi uses this theory to understand why different standards are applied to men and women who engage in the same task. This theory allows one to recognize that the quest for prestige and recognition is the primary force that drives individuals to perform excellently in a task.
Research type
The research that Foschi carried out was of the experimental type. She recruited male and female participants. She went ahead to conduct a series of experiments where the participants were asked to engage in various activities. The participants were then required to rate each other and their own performance to determine the effect of double standards on evaluation.
Key findings
The experiment that Foschi conducted enabled her to make a number of interesting observations and develop a conclusion. The findings confirm the hypothesis that Foschi sought to prove. She observed that despite scoring poorly than their female colleagues, the male participants rated themselves highly. The average individual rating for the males was 2.57 while that for the females was 2.13. This pattern remained even for males who performed better than the female participants. For the males, the score was 3.10 while the female score was 3.00. These findings indicate that actual performance does not seem to have any significant impact on evaluation. Regardless of their performance, the males consistently scored themselves higher than the females. This observation confirms that double standards are employed when evaluating men and women who perform the same task.
Reference
Foschi, M. (1996). Double Standards in the Evaluation of Men and Women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59 (3), 237-254.
