In 2 experimental studies, the authors hypothesized that the performance of altruistic citizenship behavior in a work setting would enhance the favorability of men's (but not women's) evaluations and recommendations, whereas the withholding of altruistic citizenship behavior would diminish the favorability of women's (but not men's) evaluations and recommendations. Results supported the authors' predictions. Together with the results of a 3rd study demonstrating that work-related altruism is thought to be less optional for women than for men, these results suggest that gender-stereotypic prescriptions regarding how men and women should behave result in different evaluative reactions to the same altruistic behavior, depending on the performer's sex.

In 3 experimental studies, the authors explored how ambiguity about the source of a successful joint performance outcome promotes attributional rationalization, negatively affecting evaluations of women. Participants read descriptions of a mixed-sex dyad's work and were asked to evaluate its male and female members. Results indicated that unless the ambiguity about individual contribution to the dyad's successful joint outcome was constrained by providing feedback about individual team member performance (Study 1) or by the way in which the task was said to have been structured (Study 2) or unless the negative expectations about women's performance were challenged by clear evidence of prior work competence (Study 3), female members were devalued as compared with their male counterparts-they were rated as being less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role in work on the task. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed.

Undergraduate women (N = 150) participated in 2 experimental studies designed to examine the effects of knowing that another believed they were beneficiaries of preferential selection. Results indicated that participants' awareness that the other viewed them as having been selected on the basis of gender rather than merit (a) prompted inferences that the other held negative expectations of their competence (Studies 1 and 2); (b) produced timid, performance-limiting task decisions as well as negative self-regard when they were uncertain about their task ability level (Studies 1 and 2): and (c) produced ambitious, performance-maximizing task decisions when they knew themselves to be high in task ability and also were motivated to make a good impression (Study 2). In addition, in both studies negative affect resulted from the participants' knowledge that the other viewed them as having been preferentially selected.

One hundred thirty-five undergraduates indicated the degree to which they believed gender played a role in the selection of an applicant for a graduate degree program. Both the gender composition of the cohort and the selection policy (explicitly merit-based, explicitly affirmative action, or ambiguous) were varied. Results indicated that preferential selection on the basis of gender was assumed when women were solos and explicit information about the selection policy was not provided and that these assumptions were as strong as when an affirmative action policy was explicitly stated. This did not occur when the female selectee was not a solo or when a male selectee was a solo. Evaluations of qualifications and prediction of success paralleled the preferential selection assumptions.

To determine whether appearance influences how an individual's corporate success is explained, 113 working men and women were presented with the work history of an assistant vice president (AVP) of a midsized corporation who was an either attractive or unattractive male or female. Additionally, the AVP's rise to the senior ranks was depicted as either unusually rapid or normative in pace. Results indicated that, as predicted, attractiveness had different effects on the degree to which the AVP's success was attributed to ability depending upon whether the AVP was male or female; males' ability attributions were enhanced by their good looks and females' ability attributions were detrimentally affected by them. Also as expected, capability judgments followed a similar pattern. Appearance was additionally shown to have different consequences for males and females when likeability and interpersonal integrity were rated. However, contrary to predictions, the rapidity of corporate ascent did not interact with appearance or sex in affecting attributions about or impressions of the stimulus AVPs. The implications of these results, both conceptual and practical, are discussed. In recent years psychologists have begun to focus on physical appearance as a potentially biasing factor in personnel decision making. In several studies those who are attractive have been shown to be at an advantage when qualifications are assessed and when hiring decisions are made (Dipboye, Arvey, & Terpstra, 1977; Dipboye, Fromkin, & Wiback, 1975). These studies have lent support to the idea, so popular in the social psychology literature (Berscheid & Walster, 1974), that he or she who is beautiful is also better off. However, the effects of attractiveness have not been shown to be uniformly favorable. On the contrary, women who are attractive seem to be disadvantaged by their appearance when they apply for managerial positions (Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979) or other male sex-typed positions (Cash, Gillen, & Burns, 1977). Furthermore, this effect is not confined to selection decisions alone; attractiveness also has proven to be a distinct disadvantage for managerial women when their work is evaluated and recommendations for organi