Gender Differences in Perceptions of How Others Are Affected by Self-Disclosure of Achievement

Sex Roles. Vol. 37, Nos. 1/2, 1997

Gender Differences in Perceptions of HowOthers Are Affected by Self-Disclosure ofAchievement1

Kimberly A. Daubman2

Bucknell University

Harold SigallUniversity of Maryland

Three experiments were conducted at two east coast Universities with primarilyCaucasian students participating. In experiment one, college students disclosedthat they scored in the 91st percentile or in the top half on an intelligence-relatedtest to a female student who had scored either in the 42nd percentile(low-achieving) or the 92nd percentile (high-achieving) on the same test.Women who disclosed modestly ("top half") judged that the low-achievingother felt better than women who disclosed immodestly ("91st percentile").Also, women who disclosed modestly judged that the other liked them morethan women who disclosed immodestly. These effects did not occur with men.In experiment two, college students disclosed that they scored in the 91stpercentile or in the top half on an intelligence-related test to either a male ora female student who had scored in the 42nd percentile on the same test.Women who disclosed modestly judged that a female peer liked them moreand felt more intelligent and confident than did women who disclosedimmodestly. In contrast, men who disclosed immodestly judged that a femalepeer liked them more than did men who disclosed modestly. Regardless of thepeer's gender, women judged that peers felt worse about themselves, were lesshappy and more upset when subjects had disclosed immodestly. In contrast,men judged that the peer felt better about himself or herself, was happier andless upset when the subjects had disclosed immodestly. In Experiment 3, maleand female participants rated the intelligence-related test as equally difficult

1We thank Kyra Kissam, Elizabeth Freeman, Christa Schmidt, Jason Prokopchak, MartaMcClintock, and Carrie Slane for help with data collection.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, BucknellUniversity, Lewisburg, PA 17837.

73

0360-0025/97/0700-0073$12.50/0 C 1997 Plenum Publishing Corporation

and rated doing well on them as equally important. Participants also indicatedthat doing well was equally important to males and females. Thus,ego-involvement is ruled out as an alternative explanation. These findingssupport the interpretation of previous research that women may choose todisclose modestly in an effort to be better liked or to protect the other's feelings.

Many studies have reported that females give lower estimates of their per-formance than males, even when there is no gender difference in actualperformance (see Lenney, 1977, and Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974 for reviewsof the early literature; Deaux, 1979; Erkut, 1983; Frey & Ruble, 1987; Gitel-son, Petersen, & Tobins-Richards, 1982; Gold, Brush, & Sprotzer, 1980;Lippa & Beauvais, 1983), especially if the task is perceived as masculine(Beyer, 1990; McMahan, 1982) or unsatisfying (Basow, Smither, Rupert, &Collins, 1989), if the situation is a competitive one (Corbin, 1981), or ifcomparisons are made to highly competent others (Heilman & Kram, 1978;Lenney & Gold, 1982, Lenney, Gold, & Browning, 1983). These findingshave been interpreted as evidence that females lack confidence in theirabilities. Recent research, however, suggests that females may offer lowerestimates of their ability because of a gender difference in self-presentation,not self-confidence (Daubman, Heatherington, & Ahn, 1992; Heather-ington, Daubman, Bates, Ahn, Brown, & Preston, 1993).

Daubman et al. (1992) found that college women provided lower es-timates than did men of their first-semester GPAs only when their estimatewas given publicly. This gender difference was characterized both by womenunderestimating their performance and men overestimating their perform-ance. Heatherington et al. (1993) found that women underestimated theirperformance in public, but only when their predictions were given to alow-achieving peer. Men's estimates of their performance were accurate inthis condition.

The researchers suggested various possible reasons for these results.Perhaps women present themselves modestly because they perceive thatthey would be liked better (especially by others who are average or lessthan average) for so doing. In contrast, men may not associate modestywith being liked or may even believe that they would be liked more if theydisclosed immodestly. In fact, research shows that both males and femalesare liked less if they brag than if they present their abilities in a modestfashion, but the ratings of females are more polarized than the ratings ofmales (Heatherington, Crown, Wagner, & Rigby, 1989; Miller, Cooke,Tsang, & Morgan, 1992). Miller et al. also found that male boasters (butnot female boasters) were judged to be more competent by male (but notfemale) judges.

74 Daubman and Sigall

On the other hand, it is possible that males and females make thesame inferences about how others will view them as a consequence of theirmodesty or immodesty. If so, women may behave more modestly than menbecause they are more concerned with being liked and men may boast be-cause they are more concerned with being perceived as competent. In fact,research suggests that believing oneself to be popular is more importantto the self-esteem of adolescent girls than it is to the self-esteem of ado-lescent boys, whereas believing oneself to be smart is more important tothe self-esteem of boys (Walker & Green, 1986; see also Douvan & Adel-son, 1966; Josephs, Markus, & Tafarodi, 1992; Rosenberg, 1989).

Another reason that women may behave more modestly than men isthat they are more aware of how their disclosures affect the self-evaluationsof others, especially low-achieving others. In other words, women may be-lieve that acknowledging their superiority would make the other feel inse-cure. Out of a concern for the other, they may attempt to avoid or lessenthis negative effect. On the other hand, men may be less likely to associatetheir own immodest or self-enhancing disclosure with a diminished self-evaluation of others. Many studies have demonstrated that people's affector self-evaluations can be negatively affected by comparing to someone whois better (Wheeler & Miyake, 1992), especially when these comparisons aremade in a domain that is relevant to one's self-concept (Bers & Rodin,1984; Salovey & Rodin, 1984; Tesser & Collins, 1988) or when people feelthey have little control over subsequent performances (Testa & Major,1990). However, we are not aware of any studies that have examined theextent to which people are cognizant of the effect they may have on otherswhen they serve as an upward comparison peer. It may be the case thatfemales are more aware of this effect than males. This suggestion is con-sistent with research showing that females are more empathic than males,at least as measured by self-report (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983).

Of course, it is possible that men and women do not differ in theinferences they make about how disclosures about their accomplishmentsor abilities affect others. Rather, men and women may differ on the degreeto which they are concerned about how their disclosures affect others. Itmay be the case that women place more importance on harmonious rela-tionships than men do and believe that relationships become strained ifone person in the relationship feels inferior to the other. This suggestionis consistent with an analysis offered by Eagly (1987) for why females con-form more than males in public but not private settings (Becker, 1986;Eagly & Carli, 1981; Eagly & Chrvala, 1986; Eagly, Wood, & Fishbaugh,1981). Eagly argues that conformity may occur because of females' com-mitment "to preserving group harmony and enhancing positive feelingsamong group members" (p. 98). In other words, females may choose to

Differences in Perceptions 75

present their abilities as more similar to others than they actually are forthe same reason they choose to present their opinions as more similar.Women may be especially motivated to maintain the positive affect of oth-ers, or to at least limit the negative affect.

In summary, there are various possible explanations for why femalesbut not males tend to underestimate their abilities to others who are lesscapable. First, it may be that females are more likely than males to inferthat an immodest disclosure would cause the other to like them less. Itmay also be that females are more likely than males to infer that an im-modest disclosure to a less capable other would threaten the other's self-evaluation and produce negative affect in the other. In contrast, it may bethat males and females do not differ in the inferences they make abouthow their own immodesty would affect others. Rather, females may bemore concerned than males with being liked and with limiting the other'sself-doubts and negative affect. It seems appropriate to begin by examiningwhether there are gender differences in the inferences that are made fol-lowing an immodest or modest disclosure.

In the first study, we predicted that women who revealed that theyhad performed very well to a low-achieving woman would judge that thiswoman would like them less and feel worse about herself than wouldwomen who revealed their high performance in a more modest way. Wedid not expect this effect when the participants were men, or when disclo-sures of performance were made to a high-achieving woman.

EXPERIMENT 1

Method

Participants. Sixty male and 70 female college students from an eastcoast state university participated in the study. Approximately 90% of themwere Caucasians between the ages of 18 and 22.

Design. This experiment has a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. The threefactors are participants' gender, participants' disclosure (modest vs. immod-est), and peer's performance (42nd vs. 92nd percentile).

Procedure. Participants were told that they would be performing tasksrelated to intellectual ability at the same time as another female student,and that men and women do equally well on the task. They were told thatthey would be exchanging information with the other person after the firsttask, although they would never meet her. All participants were told thatthe kind of information they would be giving and receiving would be ran-domly determined. They were then given a long list of moderately difficult


Table I. Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations of How Participant Thinks PeerFeelsa

Participant's Disclosure

Modest

Immodest

Male ParticipantsPerformance of Other

Low

M = 5.62S = .77(n = 13)M = 5.50S = .90(n = 12)

High

M = 4.14S = .66(n = 14)M = 4.29S = 1.38(n = 14)

Female ParticipantsPerformance of Other

Low

M =6.06a

S= .68(n = 16)M = 4.13hS = 1.42(n = 23)

High

M = 5.33S = .72(n = 15)M = 5.18S = 1.19(n= 17)

aScales range from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very). Means with different subscripts aresignificantly different from each other.

anagrams and instructed to complete as many of them as they could in tenminutes. All participants were told that their performance put them in the91st percentile.

Participants were then asked to fill out a form asking for informationabout themselves which would be taken to the "other participant." Half ofthe participants were asked questions requiring specific answers such astheir major and their precise percentile on the anagram task. The otherhalf of the participants were asked questions requiring more general an-swers such as which college they were in (e.g., Behavioral and Social Sci-ences) and whether they scored above or below the 50th percentile on theanagram task. The form was picked up and ostensibly taken to the "otherparticipant."

Next, participants were given a form that they believed was completedby the "other participant" from which they learned either that she scoredat the 92nd percentile or the 42nd percentile on the anagram task. Theywere then given a questionnaire on which they were asked, among otherquestions, how they thought the "other participant" was feeling and howmuch they thought the "other participant" liked them.

Results

An ANOVA was performed on the question asking subjects to judgehow the "other participant" was feeling. Ratings could range from 1 (verybad) to 7 (very good). Main effects for participant's disclosure and peer'sperformance were significant, as were all 2-way interactions (all ps <.01).However, these effects are qualified by the significant 3-way interactionbetween participant's gender, peer's performance, and participant's disclo-


Table II. Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations of How Much Participant ThinksPeer Likes Participanta


Modest

Immodest

Male ParticipantsPerformance of Other

Low

M = 4.08S= 1.0(n = 13)M = 3.50S = .76(n = 12)

High

M = 3.64S = 1.34(n = 14)M = 3.64S = 1.08(n = 14)

Female ParticipantsPerformance of Other

Low

M = 5.44a

S = 1.03(n = 16)M = 3.22b

S = .85(n = 23)

High

M = 5.87a

S = .64(n = 15)M = 2.71b

S = 1.05(n = 17)


sure, F(l,116) = 3.9 (p = .05). As shown in Table I, women who disclosedmodestly judged that the low-achieving other felt better (M = 6.1) thanwomen who disclosed immodestly (M = 4.1), t(116) = 6.1 (p <.01). Thiseffect was not found for men or for women who disclosed to a high-achiev-ing other.

An ANOVA was also performed on the question asking participantsto judge how much they thought the other liked them. Ratings could rangefrom 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Main effects for participant's disclosureand participant's gender were found, as was a 2-way interaction betweenthese two variables (all ps <.001). The 3-way interaction was also signifi-cant, F(l,116) = 4.5 (p <.05). As shown in Table II, females who disclosedmodestly judged that the other liked them more than females who disclosedimmodestly. As expected, this difference occurred when the peer was alow-achiever (Ms = 5.4 and 3.2, respectively), t(116) = 6.93 (p <.01). Un-expectedly, a similar difference was found when the peer was a high-achiever (Ms = 5.9 and 2.7, respectively). Men's judgments of how muchthe other liked them were not affected by the manipulations.

Discussion

As predicted, the women who participated in this study were morelikely than the men to infer that another person's feelings and attractiontoward them would be affected by how they disclosed their achievements.Women who were forced by the design of this study to "brag" that theyhad scored in the 91st percentile were less inclined to think that the otherliked them than were the women who modestly disclosed an above averageperformance. This finding supports the conjecture drawn from previous


studies that women may be more modest than men about their achieve-ments because they fear that they will be disliked if they are immodest. Incontrast, men appear less likely to make this inference.

This study also found that women who "bragged" about their own su-perior performance thought a low-achiever's feelings about herself wouldbe more negative than women who presented their performance more mod-estly. In contrast, men's ratings of the other's feelings were not affected byhow they presented their own achievement. This suggests that women maybe more modest than men partly because of their greater sensitivities tothe feelings of others who haven't performed as well.

A limitation to this study is that the peer was always female. Past re-search has consistently demonstrated that people prefer to compare tosame-sex others (Zanna, Goethals, & Hill, 1975), even when sex is unre-lated to the attribute on which the comparison is made (Major & Forcey,1985; Suls, Gaes, & Gastorf, 1979). In light of this, it is possible that menbelieved that they were not a relevant comparison peer for women, andtherefore inferred that a female peer would not be threatened by theirdisclosure of superior performance. In contrast, men may infer that im-modesty would cause other men to feel threatened and like them less.

To address this limitation, the second study varied both whether par-ticipants disclosed modestly or immodestly about a superior performanceand also whether this disclosure was to a male or female peer. We predictedthat women who disclosed immodestly would judge that the peer liked themless and felt worse than would women who were required to reveal theirhigh performance in a more modest way. We did not make a predictionas to whether this effect would interact with the sex of the peer. On theone hand, since people apparently view others of the same sex as morerelevant comparison peers, the effect may be more pronounced when thepeer is a female. On the other hand, because of the stereotype that menare more competent than women (Deaux & Kite, 1987), women may inferthat a man would be more threatened by their superior performance thanwould another woman. We did not expect men's judgments of how muchthe peer liked them or how the peer felt to be affected by our manipula-tions.

EXPERIMENT 2

Method

Participants. Fifty-one male and 57 female University students partici-pated in this experiment. Most of them participated to fulfill an introduc-


Table III. Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations of How Much ParticipantThinks Peer Likes Participant


Modest

Immodest

Male Participant

Male Peer

M = 3.58S = .67(n = 12)M = 3.71S = .73(n = 14)

Female Peer

M = 3.25b

S = 1.42(n = 12)M = 4.15a

S = .80(n = 13)

Female Participant

Male Peer

M = 3.53S = .83(n = 15)M = 3.40S= 1.18(n = 15)

Female Peer

M = 4.21a

S = 1.42(n . 14)M = 3.31S = 1.03(n = 13)


tory psychology requirement. A smaller number volunteered in exchangefor a chance in a $25 lottery. Approximately 95% were Caucasian betweenthe ages of 18 and 22.

Design. This experiment has a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. The threefactors are participants' gender, peers' gender, and participants' disclosure(modest vs. immodest).

Procedure. The procedure of this experiment was identical to that ofthe first except that the participants always believed that the "other par-ticipant" scored in the 42nd percentile and the sex of the "other partici-pant" was varied. Also, additional questions about how the other wasfeeling were added.

Results

ANOVAs were computed on each of the dependent variables and werefollowed by Tukey post-hoc comparisons. All ratings are on 7-point scales.A 2-way interaction between participants' gender and participants' disclo-sure was found on the liking question, F(l,100) = 6.55 (p = .01). However,this effect is qualified by the three-way interaction, F(l,100) = 3.64 (p =.06). Female participants thought that a female other liked them less whenthey disclosed immodestly (M = 3.31) than when they disclosed modestly(M = 4.21) about their own performance, (2(2,100) = 3.17 (p <.05). Maleparticipants thought that a female other liked them more when they dis-closed immodestly (M = 4.15) than when they disclosed modestly (M =3.25), 6(2,100) = 3.04 (p <.05). When the peer is male, both male andfemale participants judged his liking for them to be the same regardlessof whether they disclosed modestly or immodestly. Means for each condi-tion are reported in Table III.


Table IV. Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations of How Confident ParticipantThinks Peer Feelsa


Modest

Immodest

Male Participant

Male Peer

M = 3.33S = .78(n = 12)M = 3.36S = 1.28(n = 14)

Female Peer

M = 3.17S = 1.03(n = 12)M = 3.54S= .88(n = 13)

Female Participant

Male Peer

M = 3.00S = 1.20(n = 15)M = 3.27S = 1.10(n = 15)

Female Peer

M = 4.00aS = 1.41(n = 14)M = 2.93b

S = 1.04(n = 13)


Three-way interactions also occurred on the confidence, F(l,100) =3.85 (p = .05) and intelligence, F(l,100) = 3.53 (p = .06) questions. Ascan be seen in Tables IV and V, male participants' ratings of the other'sconfidence and intelligence were not affected by how the participant dis-closed about his own performance. Also, female participants' ratings of amale other's confidence and intelligence were not affected by how theydisclosed about their own performance. In contrast, female participantsrated a female other as less confident when the participant had disclosedimmodestly about her own performance, Q(2,100) = 3.52 (p <.05). Like-wise, female participants rated a female other as feeling less intelligentwhen they disclosed immodestly, Q(2,100) = 2.95 (p <.05).

A two-way interaction between participants' gender and participants'disclosure also occurred on the question asking participants how theythought the other felt about himself or herself in general, F(l,100) = 3.54(p = .06). Male participants thought the other felt better about himself orherself if the participant had disclosed immodestly (M = 3.93) than if hehad disclosed modestly (M = 3.5). In contrast, female participants thoughtthe other felt better about himself or herself if the participant had disclosedmodestly (M = 4.03) than if she had disclosed immodestly (M = 3.79).However, these pairwise comparisons are not significant. Finally, two-wayinteractions between participants' gender and participants' disclosure oc-curred on both the happy, F(l,100) = 4.49 (p = .04) and upset, F(l,100)= 11.74 (p <.01) questions. Male participants who disclosed modestly ratedthe other as less happy (M = 3.38) than did males who disclosed immod-estly (3.85). In contrast, female participants who disclosed immodestly ratedthe other as less happy (M = 3.46) than did females who disclosed modestly(M — 3.86). However, these pairwise comparisons are not significant. Simi-larly, male participants who disclosed modestly rated the other as moreupset (M = 4.33) than did males who disclosed immodestly (M = 3.33),


Table V. Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations of How Intelligent ParticipantThinks Peer Feelsa


Modest

Immodest

Mate Participant

Male Peer

M = 3.42S= .79(n = 12)M = 3.29S = 1.14(n = 14)

Female Peer

M = 3.42S= 1.00(n = 12)M = 3.54S = .88(n = 13)

Female Participant

Male Peer

M = 3.07S = 1.16(n = 15)M = 3.53S = 1.13(n = 15)

Female Peer

M = 4.21a

S = 1.42(n = 14)M = 3.31b

S = 1.18(n = 13)


Q(2,100) = 3.85 (p <.01). Female participants who disclosed modestlyrated the other as less upset (M = 3.35) than did females who disclosedimmodestly (M = 4.11), Q(2,100) = 3.05 (p <.05).

Discussion

The results of this experiment further support the conclusion that col-lege women make different inferences than college men about how disclo-sures of their achievements affect others' feelings and attraction towardthem. In this experiment, female participants who "bragged" about theirsuperior performance perceived that a female peer would like them less,feel less confident, and feel less intelligent than did female participantswho disclosed more modestly. In contrast, male participants who "bragged"thought that a female peer would like them more and did not perceivethat her feelings of confidence or intelligence would be affected. On ratingsof how the peer felt, the perceived gender of the peer didn't matter. Femaleparticipants who "bragged" thought the peer was less happy and more upsetand felt generally worse about himself or herself than did female partici-pants who disclosed more modestly. In contrast, male participants who"bragged" thought that the peer was happier and less upset and felt betterabout himself or herself.

A possible limitation of this study is that the anagram task may havebeen seen as more ego-relevant for females than males. Although westressed in the instructions that the scores of males and females did notdiffer on the task, this may not have been enough to override a belief thatwomen are better at verbal tasks (Hyde & Linn, 1988). Work by lesserand his colleagues (lesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988) has shown that peopleare only threatened when others outperform them on a task that is ego-


relevant. Although the pattern of results we obtained is not easily explainedby participants inferring that the task is more ego-relevant for women, anyevidence that participants did not make this inference would clarify theresults. Therefore, a third study was conducted in which participants wereasked to judge how important doing well was to themselves and to a peerwho was either male or female.

EXPERIMENT 3

Method

Participants. Twenty female and 20 male University students participatedin the study as part of a course requirement. Approximately 90% of themwere Caucasians between the ages of 18 and 22. They came from the sameparticipant pool as those who participated in Experiments 1 and 2.

Design. This experiment has a 2 x 2 factorial design. The two factorsare participants' gender and peers' gender.

Procedure. As in experiments 1 and 2, participants were told that theywould be performing tasks related to intellectual ability at the same timeas another student, but that they would never meet. They were then givena long list of moderately difficult anagrams, and later told that their per-formance put them in the 91st percentile and that the other had performedat the 42nd percentile. Participants were then asked to indicate how im-portant it was for them to do well on the anagrams, how important theythought it was to the other person to do well on them, and how difficultthey thought the anagrams were.

Results

Two-way ANOVAs were performed on all three dependent variables.As expected, no main effects or interactions were observed (all ps. > 2).On the most relevant question asking participants how important theythought it was for the other person to do well, all Fs < 1.

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that participants do not view the ana-gram task as more ego-relevant for women than for men. In this study,men and women rated doing well on the task as equally important and


equally difficult. Furthermore, participants indicated that the task was justas important for men as for women. These results make it less plausiblethat the results of the preceding two experiments occurred because par-ticipants viewed the anagram task as more ego-relevant for women.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

These studies demonstrate that college men and women make differ-ent inferences about how disclosures of their own performance affect oth-ers' feelings and others' attraction toward them. In both of the first twoexperiments, women who "bragged" that they scored in the 91st percentileinferred that another woman liked them less than women who disclosedabout their performance in a more modest way. This occurred whether thepeer had performed as well as the participant or had performed consider-ably worse. In contrast, men's judgments of how much a woman liked themwas either not affected by whether they disclosed modestly or immodestly(Experiment 1) or they judged that the woman liked them more when theyhad "bragged" (Experiment 2). Neither men's nor women's judgments ofhow much a man liked them were affected by disclosure type.

We also found that men and women make different inferences abouthow others' feelings are affected by an upward social comparison. Womenwho "bragged" that they scored substantially higher to a low-achieverjudged that this person (whether male or female) would feel less happy,more upset, and generally worse about himself or herself than did womenwho disclosed more modestly. Women who "bragged" also judged that alow-achieving woman (but not man) would feel less confident and intelli-gent. In contrast, the disclosure manipulation either did not affect men'sratings of the other's feelings (Experiment 1) or men who "bragged"thought the other's feelings would be more positive than did men who dis-closed more modestly (Experiment 2).

Daubman et al. (1992) and Heatherington et al. (1993) both foundthat first-year college women gave lower estimates than college men of theirfirst-semester GPAs, but only when the predictions were made publicly andespecially if the peer was low-achieving. They concluded that women weremodest in an effort to increase the other's liking for them and to protectthe other's feelings about herself. This conclusion presupposes what wasfound in the present study—women indeed infer that modest disclosuresincrease another woman's liking for them and make others' feelings aboutthemselves more positive. We found no evidence that men make these sameinferences. It is possible, however, that men would make these inferenceswithin a different context or within an existing relationship. Nevertheless,


it appears clear that women are more likely to make these inferences whichmay partially explain why women are more likely than men to present theiraccomplishments modestly.

The conclusion that women are more modest than men because theyare more concerned about the feelings of others and about the interper-sonal relationship is consistent with the "self-in-relation" literature (Gilli-gan, 1982; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1992; Miller, 1976).For example, Gilligan (1982) argued that girls are more likely to developan ethic of care in which a primary concern is to preserve relationships,whereas boys are more likely to develop an ethic of justice in which abstractprinciples are applied regardless of how people may be affected by theirimplementation. More recently, Feather (1987) has written that femalesplace a higher value on being understanding and sensitive to the needs ofothers than males do.

Research on conformity is also relevant to the present discussion. Sev-eral studies have found that females conform more than males in publicsettings but not necessarily in private settings (Becker, 1986; Eagly & Carli,1981; Eagly & Chrvala, 1986; Eagly, Wood, & Fishbaugh, 1981). Eagly(1987) concludes that females' greater public conformity may demonstratea commitment "to preserving group harmony and enhancing positive feel-ings among group members" (p. 98).

Research demonstrating gender differences in reward allocation(Austin & McGinn, 1977; Carles & Carver, 1979; Kahn, O'Leary, Krulewitz,& Lamm, 1980; Kidder, Belletrie, & Cohn, 1977; Major & Deaux, 1982;Watts, Messe, & Vallacher, 1982) is also intriguing. When asked to allocaterewards between themselves and another who has performed less well, fe-males tend to distribute the rewards equally whereas males tend to distrib-ute the rewards equitably (i.e., rewards in proportion to inputs). Major andAdams (1983) found that women, more so than men, allocated rewardsequally between themselves and a lower-achieving partner regardless ofwhether they would ever meet the partner. Participants were asked whythey allocated rewards in the way they did. "Concern for the other person'sfeelings" predicted a more equal allocation and mediated the gender dif-ference. It appears that women's greater generosity was motivated by agreater concern for the other's welfare.

We are suggesting that women's greater modesty in presenting theirabilities or accomplishments is one of a cluster of gender differences, andthat each of these gender differences may occur because of women's greatermotivation to preserve or enhance interpersonal relationships or the wel-fare of others. The present study is part of this larger picture. In order formodesty to be motivated by a concern for the other and one's relationshipwith the other, women would have to infer that immodesty threatens this


relationship and threatens the self-esteem of others who are not as accom-plished. The present study demonstrates this, and suggests that men areless likely to make these inferences. This gender difference may emergebecause our culture traditionally focuses females on maintaining social re-lationships while focusing males on personal achievement.

Although not the main focus of this study, it is interesting to speculateabout whether women or men are more accurate in the inferences theymake. Studies conducted by Heatherington et al. (1989) and Miller et al.(1992) both found that people who brag are not liked as much as peoplewho disclose positive information about themselves, but in a more modestfashion. This was true when disclosers were male as well as when they werefemale. However, when the discloser was female, the difference in likingbetween the boastful and modest discloser was more pronounced.Schlenker and Leary (1982) found a similar result. In this study, actors (sexunspecified) who performed extremely well on an exam were evaluatedmore favorably and liked more if they said they had performed "all right"or "well" rather than "extremely well." In all three studies, both male andfemale participants liked a boastful discloser less than a modest discloser.Given these findings, it is reasonable to suggest that the women are accu-rate in their judgments of how other women's liking for them is affectedby their disclosure. However, women may be insensitive to how their dis-closures affect men's liking for them. The fact that men judged that a peer'sliking for them would either not be affected or would be enhanced by"bragging" suggests an even greater insensitivity on the part of men. Thisinsensitivity could have detrimental effects on interpersonal relationships.

Women may also be more accurate in the inferences they make abouthow their disclosures affect others' self-evaluations. Several studies havedemonstrated that people's self-evaluations can be threatened by upwardsocial comparisons to similar others (Bers & Rodin, 1984; Salovy & Rodin,1984; Tesser & Collins, 1988; Testa & Major, 1990; Wheeler & Miyake,1992). Given research showing that people prefer to compare to same-sexothers (Major & Forcey, 1985; Suls, Gaes, & Gastorf, 1978; Zanna,Goethals, & Hill, 1975), upward social comparisons to others of the samesex may be especially threatening. Women's inferences about how a peerwas affected by their disclosure are consistent with these findings. On theother hand, men's inferences are not.

In fact, in the second study we found that men who disclosed thatthey had substantially outperformed the peer judged that the peer wouldfeel happier, less upset, and generally better about himself or herself thandid men who disclosed modestly. Perhaps men who were allowed to "brag"that they had scored in the 91st percentile to someone who had scoredonly in the 42nd percentile felt happier, less upset, and generally better


about themselves than did men who could merely say that they scored inthe top half. These better feelings may have been projected onto the peer.Just as upward social comparisons may dampen one's mood and threatenone's self-evaluation, downward social comparisons have been shown tomake people feel better (Gibbons, 1986; Gibbons & McCoy, 1991; Morse& Gergen, 1970; Wills, 1987). It is possible that this is especially true formen. A recent study by Schwalbe & Staples (1991) found that men putgreater importance than women did on doing better than someone else inorder to feel good about themselves.

Of course, the main purpose for this study was not to assess whethermen or women are more accurate in the inferences they make about howdisclosures of their abilities affect others' attraction toward them or feelingsabout themselves. Rather, we were primarily concerned with testingwhether men and women, on average, make different inferences. It is clearthat they do, at least under conditions like those we created in this study.What is more, the inferences more characteristic of women are consistentwith our proposal that women are more likely than men to disclose mod-estly because they believe immodesty makes them less likable and threatensothers who are not as accomplished. It would be worthwhile for futureresearch to test whether this gender difference occurs across different typesof tasks and different degrees of relationship closeness. Future researchmight also explore what gender-linked socialization experiences mediatethe gender difference.

REFERENCES

Austin, W., & McGinn, N. C. (1977). Sex differences in choice of distribution rules. Journalof Personality, 45, 379-394.

Basow, S. A., Smither, J. W., Rupert, L., & Collins, H. (1989). The effect of satisfaction andgender on self-evaluation of task performance. Sex Roles, 20, 413-427.

Becker, B. J. (1986). Influence again: Another look at studies of gender differences in socialinfluence. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances throughmeta-analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bers, S. A., & Rodin, J. (1984). Social-comparison jealousy: A developmental and motivationalstudy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 766-779.

Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 960-970.

Carles, E. M., & Carver, C. S. (1979). Effects of person salience versus role salience on rewardallocation in a dyad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2071-2080.

Corbin, C. B. (1981). Sex of subject, sex of opponent, and opponent ability as factors affectingself-confidence in a competitive situation. Journal of Sports Psychology, 4, 265-270.

Daubman, K. A., Heatherington, L., & Ann, A. (1992). Gender and the self-presentation ofacademic achievement. Sex Roles, 27, 187-204.

Deaux, K. (1979). Self-evaluations of male and female managers. Sex Roles, 3, 571-581.Deaux, K. & Kite, M. E. (1987). Thinking about gender. In B. B. Hess & M. M. Ferree

(Eds.), Analyzing gender A handbook of social science research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as

determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influencestudies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1-20.

Eagly, A. H., & Chrvala, C. (1986). Sex differences in conformity: Status and gender-roleinterpretations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 203-220.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Fishbaugh, L (1981). Sex differences in conformity: Surveillanceby the group as a determinant of male nonconformity. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 40, 384-394.

Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities.Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100-131.

Erkut, S. (1983). Exploring sex differences in expectancy, attribution, and academicachievement. Sex Roles, 9, 217-231.

Feather, N. T (1987). Gender differences in values: Implications of the expectancy-valuemodel. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention, and volition. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Frey, K. S. & Ruble, D. N. (1987). What children say about classroom performance. ChildDevelopment, 58, 1066-1078.

Gibbons, F. X. (1986). Social comparison and depression: Company's effect on misery. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 140-148.

Gibbons, F. X., & McCoy, S. B. (1991). Self-esteem, similarity, and reactions to active versuspassive downward comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 414-424.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gitelson, I. B., Petersen, A. C, & Tobin-Richards, M. H. (1982). Adolescents' expectanciesof success, self-evaluations, and attributions about performance on spatial and verbaltasks. Sex Roles, 8, 411-419.

Gold, A. R., Brush, L. R., & Sprotzer, E. R. (1980). Developmental changes in self-perceptionsof intelligence and self-confidence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 231-239.

Heatherington, L., Daubman, K. A., Bates, C, Ann, A., Brown, H. & Preston, C. (1993).Two investigations of "female modesty" in achievement situations. Sex Roles, 29, 739-754.

Heatherington, L., Crown, J., Wagner, H., & Rigby, S. (1989). Toward an understanding ofsocial consequences of "feminine immodesty" about personal achievements. Sex Roles,20, 371-380.

Heilman, M. E., & Kram. K. E. (1978). Self-derogatory behavior in women—Fixed or flexible:The effects of co-workers' sex. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22,497-507.

Hyde, J. S. & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.

Jordan, J., Kaplan, A., Miller, J., Stiver, I., & Surrey, J. (1991). Women's growth in connection.New York: Guilford.

Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and self-esteem. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 391-402.

Kahn, A., O'Leary, V. E., Krulewitz, J. E., & Lamm, H. (1980). Equity and equality: Maleand female means to a just end. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 173-197.

Kidder, L. H., Bellettirie, G., & Cohn, E. S. (1977). Secret ambitions and public performances:The effects of anonymity on reward allocations made by men and women. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 13, 70-80.

Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin,84, 1-13.

Lenney, E., & Gold, J. (1982). Sex differences in self-confidence: The effects of taskcompletion and of comparison to competent others. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 8, 74-80.


Lenney, E., Gold, J., & Browning, C. (1983). Sex differences in self-confidence: The influenceof comparison to others' ability level. Sex Roles, 9, 925-942.

Lippa, R., & Beauvais, C. (1983). Gender jeopardy: The effects of gender, assessed femininityand masculinity, and false success/failure feedback on performance in an experimentalquiz game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 344-353.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA:Stanford California Press.

Major, B., & Adams, J. B. (1983). Role of gender, interpersonal orientation, and self-presentationin distributive-justice behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 598-608.

Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg &R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Major, B., & Forcey, B. (1985). Social comparisons and pay evaluations: Preferences forsame-sex and same-job wage comparisons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21,393-405.

McMahan, I. D. (1982). Expectancy of success on sex-linked tasks. Sex Roles, 8, 949-958.Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.Miller, L. C, Cooke, L. L, Tsang, J., & Morgan, F. (1992). Should I brag? Nature and the

impact of positive and boastful disclosures for men and women. Human CommunicationResearch, 18, 364-399.

Morse, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept ofself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 148-156.

Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. Middleton, CT: WesleyanUniversity Press.

Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparisonjealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 780-792.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Audiences' reactions to self-enhancing, self-denigrating,and accurate self-presentations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 89-104.

Schwalbe, M. L., & Staples, C. L. (1991). Gender differences in sources of self-esteem. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 54, 158-168.

Suls, J., Gaes, G., & Gastorf, J. (1979). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Comparison withsame-, opposite , and combined-sex norms. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 294-304.

Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social comparisonand reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 54, 49-61.

Tesser, A., & Collins, J. E. (1988). Emotion in social reflection and comparison situations:Intuitive, systematic, and exploratory approaches. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 55, 695-709.

Testa, M., & Major, B. (1990). The impact of social comparisons after failure: The moderatingeffects of perceived control. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 205-218.

Walker, L. S., & Green, J. W. (1986). The social context of adolescent self-esteem. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 15, 315-322.

Watts, B. L., Messe, L. A., & Vallacher, R. R. (1982). Toward understanding sex differencesin pay allocation: Agency, communion, and reward distribution behavior. Sex Roles, 8,1175-1187.

Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 62, 760-773.

Wills, T. A. (1987). Downward comparison as a coping mechanism. In C. R. Snyder & C. E.Ford (Eds.), Coping with negative life events. New York: Plenum Press.

Zanna, M. P., Goethals, G. R., & Hill, J. F. (1975). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Socialcomparison with similar others and standard setters. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 11, 86-93.


Gender Differences in Perceptions of How Others Are Affected by Self-Disclosure of Achievement

Documents

Transcript of Gender Differences in Perceptions of How Others Are Affected by Self-Disclosure of Achievement