東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Did I do that? Women's attributional...

Haynes, Michelle C.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Did I do that? Women's attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful work outcomes.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Did I do that? Women's attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful work outcomes./
作者:	Haynes, Michelle C.
面頁冊數:	133 p.
附註:	Adviser: Madeline E. Heilman.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International67-09B.
標題:	Psychology, Industrial. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3234140
ISBN:	9780542877605

Did I do that? Women's attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful work outcomes.
Haynes, Michelle C.

Did I do that? Women's attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful work outcomes. - 133 p.

Adviser: Madeline E. Heilman.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--New York University, 2006.

I explore whether and under what conditions women take less credit for successful work outcomes when they are achieved while working jointly with men. I propose women's derogation of relative contribution is a consequence of a self-attributional rationalization, one of the processes by which individuals reconcile discrepancies between performance expectations and subsequent outcomes in the presence of source ambiguity. My central thesis is that the diagnostic power of explicit and objectively excellent performance outcomes is challenged when the degree of individual contribution to an outcome is unclear. The resulting ambiguity regarding the source of the outcome creates fertile ground for stereotype-based expectations to color subsequent individual self-evaluations. In a series of four experimental studies, participants were led to believe they were working with another study participant on a male sex-typed task for which they were jointly responsible. All participants received (false) extremely positive feedback about their performance. Results indicated that unless the source of the performance outcome was irrefutably clear (Studies 1 & 2), or there was no other reliable person to whom the successful outcome could be attributed to (Study 3), women attributed more credit to their teammate, and took less credit themselves, for their involvement in the successful outcome. Results of Study 4 provided additional support for the notion that performance expectations are at the root of self-attributional rationalization: when provided with positive' performance expectations women no longer engaged in self-attributional rationalization even in the presence of source ambiguity; it was only in the absence of specific information about future performance effectiveness that women gave more credit to their teammate and took less credit for themselves. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed.

ISBN: 9780542877605Subjects--Topical Terms:

520063
Psychology, Industrial.

Did I do that? Women's attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful work outcomes.
LDR:02883nam 2200289 a 45 001 943492
005 20110520
008 110520s2006 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780542877605
035 $a (UMI)AAI3234140
035 $a AAI3234140
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Haynes, Michelle C. $3 1267533
245 1 0 $a Did I do that? Women's attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful work outcomes.
300 $a 133 p.
500 $a Adviser: Madeline E. Heilman.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-09, Section: B, page: 5454.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--New York University, 2006.
520 $a I explore whether and under what conditions women take less credit for successful work outcomes when they are achieved while working jointly with men. I propose women's derogation of relative contribution is a consequence of a self-attributional rationalization, one of the processes by which individuals reconcile discrepancies between performance expectations and subsequent outcomes in the presence of source ambiguity. My central thesis is that the diagnostic power of explicit and objectively excellent performance outcomes is challenged when the degree of individual contribution to an outcome is unclear. The resulting ambiguity regarding the source of the outcome creates fertile ground for stereotype-based expectations to color subsequent individual self-evaluations. In a series of four experimental studies, participants were led to believe they were working with another study participant on a male sex-typed task for which they were jointly responsible. All participants received (false) extremely positive feedback about their performance. Results indicated that unless the source of the performance outcome was irrefutably clear (Studies 1 & 2), or there was no other reliable person to whom the successful outcome could be attributed to (Study 3), women attributed more credit to their teammate, and took less credit themselves, for their involvement in the successful outcome. Results of Study 4 provided additional support for the notion that performance expectations are at the root of self-attributional rationalization: when provided with positive' performance expectations women no longer engaged in self-attributional rationalization even in the presence of source ambiguity; it was only in the absence of specific information about future performance effectiveness that women gave more credit to their teammate and took less credit for themselves. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed.
590 $a School code: 0146.
650 4 $a Psychology, Industrial. $3 520063
650 4 $a Sociology, Organizational. $3 1018023
650 4 $a Women's Studies. $3 1017481
690 $a 0453
690 $a 0624
690 $a 0703
710 2 $a New York University. $3 515735
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 67-09B.
790 $a 0146
790 1 0 $a Heilman, Madeline E., $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2006
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3234140