Sex Composition of Groups and Member Motivation II. Effects of Relative Task Ability.

This study examined the effects of group members' relative task ability on the relationship between group sex composition and member task motivation. Male and female subjects performed a simple motor task with an opposite-sex partner, a same-sex partner, or no partner. Partners had higher, equal, or lower task ability than subjects. When the partner was more able than the subject, both sexes did more work with an opposite-sex partner than when working individually, whereas subjects with a same-sex partner did no more work than individual controls. Group sex composition did not affect member motivation when the partner was equally or less able. These findings disconfirmed several models of the sex composition-motivation relationship. They supported an esteem maintenance model which holds that both sexes place greater value on demonstrating competence to opposite-sex partners than to same-sex partners.

[1]  N. Kerr,et al.  Group sex composition and member task motivation , 1983 .

[2]  N. Kerr,et al.  Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects , 1983 .

[3]  Bruno S. Frey,et al.  Self‐interest and collective action: The economics and psychology of public goods , 1982 .

[4]  N. Kerr,et al.  Ringelmann Revisited , 1981 .

[5]  D. Tjosvold,et al.  The effects of unequal competence and sex on achievement and self-presentation , 1979 .

[6]  S. Rosenthal.  The relationship of attraction and sex composition to performance and nonperformance experimental outcomes in dyads , 1978 .

[7]  J. M. Jellison,et al.  A Self-Presentation Interpretation of the Seeking of Social Approval , 1978 .

[8]  D. Sherrod,et al.  Effects of Sex-of-Observer on Female Actors' Causal Attributions for Success and Failure , 1978 .

[9]  K. Deaux,et al.  Fear of success versus fear of gender-inappropriate behavior , 1978 .

[10]  K. Deaux,et al.  Attributing causes for one's own performance: The effects of sex, norms, and outcome , 1977 .

[11]  V. Murphy-Berman.  Effects of success and failure on perceptions of gender identity , 1976 .

[12]  J. Pleck.  Male threat from female competence. , 1976, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[13]  Mark P. Zanna,et al.  On the self-fulfilling nature of apparent sex differences in behavior , 1975 .

[14]  Jeanne Marecek,et al.  When Stereotypes Hurt: Three Studies of Penalties for Sex-Role Reversals. , 1975 .

[15]  D. R. Shaffer,et al.  Success orientation and sex‐role congruence as determinants of the attractiveness of competent women , 1974 .

[16]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  Obedience as a function of experimenter competence , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[17]  D. E. Clement,et al.  Sex composition and group performance in a visual signal detection task , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[18]  M. Komarovsky.  Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles: The Masculine Case , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[19]  P. Wallin.  Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles: A Repeat Study , 1950 .

[20]  M. Komarovsky.  Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles , 1946, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  E. B. South.  Some psychological aspects of committee work. , 1927 .

[22]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Psychology of Group Influence , 1981 .

[23]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[24]  N. Feather.  Positive and negative reactions to male and female success and failure in relation to the perceived status and sex-typed appropriateness of occupations. , 1975 .

[25]  N. Feather,et al.  Reactions to male and female success and failure in sex-linked occupations: impressions of personality, causal attributions, and perceived likelihood of different consequences. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.