strategies to motivate helpless and mastery-oriented children: the effect of gender-based...

24
Sex Roles, Vol. 25, Nos. 9/10, 1991 Strategies to Motivate Helpless and Mastery-Oriented Children: The Effect of Gender-Based Expectancies Ann K. Boggiano 2 and Marty Barrett Five studies examined potential determinants of gender differences in helpless- ness by investigating two major steps in the expectancy confirmation process. The first step, i.e., an examination of gender-based expectancies, was addressed in three studies in which subjects (parents and college students) read vignettes that included either masculine or feminine sex-linked tasks performed by help- less and mastery-oriented children. We hypothesized that across tasks subjects would consider a "helpless" approach toward achievement as stereotypic of girls and "mastery-oriented" behavior as stereotypic of boys. The next step of the expectancy confirmation process, and central question addressed here, centered on the proposed differential treatment prescribed .['or children who performed inadequately on an academic activity, depending on whether these children's behaviors were consistent or inconsistent with stereotypic expecta- tions. The pattern of data obtained generally supported hypotheses that (1) under conditions in which children's behavior confirmed expectancies, i.e., girls acting helpless and boys showing mastery-oriented behaviors, supportive responses would be prescribed, whereas (2) when children's behavior violated expectancies, i.e., girls acting in a mastery-oriented manner and boys acting in a helpless manner, more controlling techniques would be used. These findings are discussed in terms of consequences of use of these different strategies to remedy helpless behaviors in children. 1The authors are particularly grateful to Louise Silvern, Paget Gross, Diane N. Ruble, Bernadette Park, Charles M. Judd, and Deborah S. Main for their helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. The research was supported in part by Grant No. 39197 from the National Institute of Mental Health to the first author. 2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Campus Box 345, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0345. 487 0360-0025/91/1100-0487506.50/0 © 1991 PlenumPublishing Corporation

Upload: ann-k-boggiano

Post on 12-Aug-2016

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Sex Roles, Vol. 25, Nos. 9/10, 1991

Strategies to Motivate Helpless and Mastery-Oriented Children: The Effect of Gender-Based Expectancies

Ann K. Boggiano 2 and Marty Barrett

Five studies examined potential determinants of gender differences in helpless- ness by investigating two major steps in the expectancy confirmation process. The first step, i.e., an examination of gender-based expectancies, was addressed in three studies in which subjects (parents and college students) read vignettes that included either masculine or feminine sex-linked tasks performed by help- less and mastery-oriented children. We hypothesized that across tasks subjects would consider a "helpless" approach toward achievement as stereotypic of girls and "mastery-oriented" behavior as stereotypic of boys. The next step of the expectancy confirmation process, and central question addressed here, centered on the proposed differential t r e a t m e n t prescribed .['or children who performed inadequately on an academic activity, depending on whether these children's behaviors were consistent or inconsistent with stereotypic expecta- tions. The pattern of data obtained generally supported hypotheses that (1) under conditions in which children's behavior confirmed expectancies, i.e., girls acting helpless and boys showing mastery-oriented behaviors, supportive responses would be prescribed, whereas (2) when children's behavior violated expectancies, i.e., girls acting in a mastery-oriented manner and boys acting in a helpless manner, more controlling techniques would be used. These findings are discussed in terms of consequences of use of these different strategies to remedy helpless behaviors in children.

1The authors are particularly grateful to Louise Silvern, Paget Gross, Diane N. Ruble, Bernadette Park, Charles M. Judd, and Deborah S. Main for their helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. The research was supported in part by Grant No. 39197 from the National Institute of Mental Health to the first author.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Campus Box 345, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0345.

487

0360-0025/91/1100-0487506.50/0 © 1991 Plenum Publishing Corporation

488 Boggiano and Barrett

Gender differences in the way that boys and girls approach achieve- ment situations have been a consistent finding in the educational and developmental literature (cf. Parsons, Kaczala, & Meece, 1982; Solomon, 1982). Girls have been found to blame their failure on lack of ability more frequently than boys and show more negative affect relative to boys after failure information (Deaux & Emswiller, 1974; Nicholls, 1975; Parsons, 1981; Parsons, Ruble, Hodges, & Small, 1976). In addition to gender-re- lated self-conceptions about ability, girls often exhibit more "learned help- lessness" than boys (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Licht, 1980) by responding to failure or uncontrollable experiences in maladaptive ways (Maier & Selig- man, 1976). To illustrate, failure feedback on an achievement-related task produces deterioration of subsequent performance and motivation for girls, but not for boys (Dweck & Gilliard, 1975; Dweck & Goetz, 1978; however, see Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984). In fact, upon receipt of failure feed- back, boys generally display mastery-oriented behaviors, i.e., their effort in- creases after failure, which often produces an increase in performance relative to baseline (Dweck & Reppucci, 1973).

Although all children will experience some degree of failure during the school years, little is known about why a significant proportion of girls, and in particular, sex-typed females, exhibit a range of helpless responses, whereas boys generally manifest mastery-oriented behaviors following failure or experiences of low control (Baucom, 1983). This issue is of con- siderable significance as propensity toward helplessness might not only have negative and long-lasting implications for school achievement (Nolen- Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1986), but is considered a major cause of depression in females (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987; Peterson & Seligman, 1984; Radloff, 1975; Seligman, 1975).

One way to conceptualize the emergence of differential responses of girls and boys to failure feedback may be in terms of expectancy confir- mation of socializing agents (Brophy & Good, 1974; Darley & Fazio, 1980; Jussim, 1986, Snyder, 1984). According to this perspective, expectations of adults may produce hypotheses or behaviors correspondent with these ex- pectancies (e.g., behaving aggressively toward a person believed to be "tough") which in turn may lead to behaviors on the part of the person for whom the expectancy is held (e.g., angry responses) that provide be- havioral confirmation for the initial, and perhaps highly invalid, expectancy (Darley & Gross, 1983; Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). Application of the expectancy confirmation model to gender differences in helplessness is assumed here to operate in the fol- lowing manner. The first step in the expectancy confirmation sequence would be a socializing agent's expectancies about helpless vs. mastery- oriented behaviors in boys and girls. More specifically, a perceiver is

Gender-Based Expectancies 489

hypothesized to consider a "helpless" approach toward achievement fol- lowing failure as stereotypic of females, and "mastery-oriented" behavior as stereotypic of males. Confident, mastery-oriented responses are consis- tent with stereotypic conceptions of males who are deemed independent, whereas nonconfident, helpless responses are consistent with stereotypic conceptions of the dependent female (Ashmore & Tumia, 1980; Baucom & Danker-Brown, 1984; Deaux, 1976; Del Boca & Ashmore, 1980; Ruble, 1983; Ruble & Ruble, 1980; Spence, Deaux, & Helmreich, 1985; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974).

According to an expectancy confirmation formulation, the next step of the process and central question addressed here, centers on the dif- ferential treatment provided to children behaving in ways that are consis- tent or inconsistent with stereotypic expectations (see Condry & Condry, 1976; Condry, Condry, & Pogatshnik, 1983). According to several theoreti- cal analyses (Cooper, 1979; Jussim, 1986), children's behaviors violating expectations may lead to attempts to control the behaviors of those stu- dents by setting up a highly structured environment where activities are monitored carefully, in contrast to a more emotionally supportive environ- ment for students whose behaviors and outcomes are consistent with ex- pectations (Jussim, 1986). Thus, for example, a dependent, helpless girl or independent, master-oriented boy should be responded to with greater support than others whose behaviors are not consistent with stereotypic conceptions. Conversely, responses of socializing agents that are more power-oriented or coercive may be utilized in order to ensure control over the behaviors of the gender-inappropriate child, presumably because gender-inappropriate or expectancy disconfirming behaviors elicit negative feelings (Jussim, 1986) and are perceived to reflect maladjustment (Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Maracek, & Pascale, 1975). {To determine whether subjects would prescribe the use of controlling strategies under conditions in which negative attitudes would most likely be held (e.g., toward children intentionally displaying acting-out behaviors), a sample of subjects was provided with scenarios of children displaying mildly disrup- tive behaviors. The important factor was whether subjects were told that the children were "intentionally acting-out" or not. Subjects' mean ratings for use of controlling strategies were significantly higher for children described as intentionally acting-out as compared to children displaying the same behaviors but without the attribution implying that the behavior was purposeful [F(1, 47) = 4.29, p < .05; M = 5.0 vs. M = 4.1, respec- tively; 1-7 scale where 1 = not at all appropriate and 7 = very ap- propriate)].} Thus, although clearly socializing agents would prefer use of supportive over controlling strategies (Barrett & Boggiano, 1988), this analysis based on gender-appropriate behaviors of children would suggest

490 Boggiano and Barrett

Expectancies .................. > Behavior .... - ............... > Effects on child's Achievement

Antecedents Soclalizer'e Behaviors Consequences (Based on previous findings)

Effects of Coercive Techniques 1) reduced problem-solving skills,

creativity, and achievement 2) decreased motivation

Gender-Role 3) increased susceptibility to stereotypes helplessness

4i lowered porceptions of competence and self-esteem

Behaviors chosen by socializing Agent Coercive vs. Supportive

Interpretations of Behavior of Child

Effects of SUDDortlve Techniuues Pralse/Success Feedback: 1) positive effect on boys, intrinsic

motivation and performance 2) mixed effect on 9irls' intrinsic

motivation and performance 3) mixed effect in reducing helplessness

Effort-Outcome Covariation 1) may increase Internal locus of

control 2) beneficial effect in reducing

helplessness

Fig. 1. Potential socializing agents' responses to a child's achievement-related failure as a

function of gender-based stereotypes.

(1) less coercive and more supportive treatment of helpless girls and mastery-oriented boys after failure, and (2) more coercive and less sup- portive treatment of gender-inappropriate types given the same perfor- mance, as depicted in Fig. 1.

The present set of studies attempts to examine directly several steps in the process by which expectancies and intended treatment of children by socializing agents may mediate the development of helplessness in girls. Although the effects of these expectancies and subsequent behaviors of per- ceivers on girls' vs. boys' actual academic performance will n o t be tested here, several lines of research suggest that the impact may have far-reach- ing effects. Use of controlling techniques (e.g., threat of punishment, ex- trinsic incentives), strategies typically used by adults to motivate children to achieve (Boggiano, Barrett, Weiher, McClelland, & Lusk, 1987), not only has a negative effect on children's perceptions of competence, control, and self-esteem (Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986) and subsequent problem-solving skills (Amabile, 1983; Amabile, & Hennessey, in press; Boggiano, Barrett, Shields, Flink, & Seelbach, 1991; Boggiano & Main, 1986; Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990), but sets up an orientation to learning that ultimately engenders increased susceptibility to helplessness deficits (Boggiano & Barrett, 1985; Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988). Thus, if preference for controlling treatment is affected by gender-appropriate expectancies and these types of strategies are used with children whose behaviors violate expectancies (i.e., mastery-oriented girls and helpless

Gender-Based Expectancies 491

boys), mastery-oriented girls should become more prone than mastery- oriented boys to helpless behaviors. Moreover, even if helpless boys are treated with coercive strategies following failure, they may be less affected than girls by the same techniques. That is, although both boys' and gifts' subsequent performance is impaired by controlling feedback (Boggiano et al., 1991; Flink et al., 1990; Harackiewicz, 1979; Harackiewicz, Abrahams, & Wageman, 1987; Harackiewicz, Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984), a number of studies indicate that boys discount evaluative feedback from adults to a greater extent than girls (Dweck & Bush, 1976; Fagot, 1985; Ransen, 1980). Thus, although coercive or controlling techniques have dramatic negative effects on both males and females, research findings suggest that these techniques may have a more detrimental impact on females (Kast, 1983).

Even the use of supportive techniques with gender-appropriate types (i.e., helpless girls and mastery-oriented boys) may not always have the positive effect intended, at least for girls. For example, positive verbal feed- back has been found to impact negatively on girls', but not boys', sub- sequent motivation (Boggiano, Harckiewicz, Bassette, & Main, 1985; Carone, 1975; Deci, 1972; Deci, Cascio, & Krusell, 1973), but not consis- tently (Blanck, Reis, & Jackson, 1984). Adults' indiscriminate use of praise with girls but not boys has led some researchers to conclude that girls vir- tually discount supportive, positive feedback from adults about their academic skills (Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna, 1978; however, see Parsons et al., 1982). Finally, because females are particularly sensitive to expectancies of others more generally, they may be more affected by stereotypes ascribed to them (Christensen & Rosenthal, 1982). Taken together, then, previous research does not provide a particularly rosy pic- ture for girls if perceivers do indeed show a relative preference for coercive strategies with mastery-oriented girls and a preference for supportive tech- niques (e.g., positive feedback) with their helpless counterparts. Moreover, if boys are less affected than girls by negative teacher strategies (Dweck et al., 1978), it may not be particularly surprising that they appear to exhibit fewer helplessness symptoms over time in comparison to girls (Dweck & Bush, 1976).

To sum, the present line of research examined potential deter- minants of gender differences in helplessness by investigating two major steps in the expectancy confirmation process. The first step, i.e., an ex- amination of gender-based expectancies, was addressed by vignettes provided to perceivers describing helpless and mastery-oriented children performing different tasks. The gender of the child was n o t provided to determine whether subjects would perceive the helpless and mastery- oriented types as more likely to be male or female. Our hypothesis was that, regardless of the nature of the activity performed, helpless be-

492 Boggiano and Barrett

haviors would be more likely to be ascribed to females relative to males; thus, the opposi te pat tern should emerge when a vignette depicts mastery-oriented behaviors.

The second major question and critical part of the expectancy con- firmation process tested here centered on the proposed treatment adults believe they would use to remedy inadequate performance of mastery- oriented or helpless boys and girls. To examine this issue, perceivers read vignettes describing mastery-oriented or helpless girls or boys, and were asked to rank order and rate the effectiveness of coercive vs. various sup- portive techniques to counteract the inadequate performance of the child described in the scenario. Although it was assumed that supportive strategies would generally be preferred over more controlling strategies to maximize subsequent performance (Barrett & Boggiano, 1988), the gender- appropriate hypothesis suggests that coercive rather than supportive tech- niques would be prefer red after exposure to children behaving in nonstereotypic ways (i.e., mastery-oriented girls and helpless boys), whereas more supportive techniques would be preferred with gender-appropriate types (see Fig. 1).

STUDY 1

Method

In our first study examining gender-based expectancies, 18 students (10 men and 8 women) were recruited from introductory psychology classes, purportedly to study adults' perceptions of children at elementary school age. They were asked to read a vignette about two children performing a "masculine" task, i.e., one involving a mechanical skill, in which one child displayed behaviors characteristic of a helpless child and the other dis- played mastery-oriented behaviors (Dweck & Goetz, 1978). For each set of behaviors, we varied the other of presentations of the mastery-oriented and helpless children throughout the scenario. The mastery-oriented child in the vignette was labeled Child A, whereas the helpless child was labeled Child B. The mastery-oriented child ascribed failure to not trying hard, struggled with difficult problems until getting the answer, and tried several different ways to solve a task, whereas the helpless child ascribed failure to lack of ability, gave up rather than continuing to try and solve difficult problems, and solicited the teacher's help to solve a task. A section from the vignette follows:

G e n d e r - B a s e d E x p e c t a n c i e s 4 9 3

• . . The class was assigned to work on reports. There was a film strip B needed to view to get more information on B's topic, so B got the necessary equipment. B could not, however, get the film strip correctly inserted into the machine. After about half a minute, B gave up. B spent over 5 minutes waiting around before t h e

teacher came by and B could ask for help. The teacher inserted the film strip into the projector and then offered help in operating the film strip projector and rewind- ing the film strip. B accepted the offer, saying, "l'm not sure I could do it because I'm not sure I could follow the instructions." The teacher stayed and showed B how to use the projector. A little while later, A found a film strip on A's topic and went and got the film strip projector. A also could not get the film strip correctly inserted into the machine. After about half a minute, A took a deep breath and started over. A spent over 5 minutes trying different ways to get the film inscrted. A got the film strip inserted into the projector just as the teacher came by. The teacher offered help in operating the projector and rewinding the film strip. But A refused the offer, saying, "I think 1 can figure it out if I follow the instructions." The teacher left and A figured out how to use the projector . . . .

A f t e r r e a d i n g this v igne t te , subjec ts were asked wha t sex they t h o u g h t

p e r s o n i f i e d chi ld A vs. child B. Specifically, they were asked to m a k e ra t ings for each cha rac t e r o n scales of 1-7 wh e re 1 = definitely male a n d 7 = definitely female. T h e scales were p r e c e d e d with the ph ra se "I be l ieve A (B) is . . . . " Q u e s t i o n s were p r e s e n t e d in c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d order , A d d i t i o n a l ques t ions , fi l ler i t ems that were no t ana lyzed , were i nc luded to r e d u c e the

sa l i ence o f the g e n d e r q u e s t i o n s (e.g., " W h i c h cha rac t e r do you th ink wou ld have m o r e f r i ends? . . . . Wh i c h cha rac t e r do you th ink wou ld p re f e r qu ie t i n d o o r type act ivi t ies?") . Fo l lowing c o m p l e t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , sub- jec t s were fully debr i e fed .

Results

Resu l t s i nd ica ted tha t the m e a n ra t ings for the m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d a n d

he lp less cha rac t e r s were s ignif icant ly d i f fe ren t f rom o n e a n o t h e r [t(17) =

3.48, p < .005, M = 3.11 ( m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d ) and M = 4.78 (he lp less ) ,

w h e r e 1 = definitely male a n d 7 = definitely female]. In add i t ion , the m e a n r a t ing for the m a s t e r y - o r i e n t e d cha rac t e r di f fered f rom 4.0, scale m i d p o i n t [t(17) = 2.96, p < .01], as did the m e a n ra t ing for the helpless c h a r a c t e r [t(17) = 3.55, p < .01]. T h e r e were no s igni f icant ma in effects or in te rac -

t ions invo lv ing subjec t sex.

S T U D Y 2

M e t h o d

T h e data f rom o u r first s tudy provided suppor t for the hypothesis tha t helpless behav ior in pe r fo rming a mechanica l task is bel ieved to depict female

494 Boggiano and Barrett

children to a greater extent than male children, and that being mastery- oriented in this kind of task characterizes boys more than girls. Because of the importance of gender-related stereotypic expectancies, and to provide ex- ternal validity, parents with experience with children the age of those in the scenarios were recruited, and were asked to read the same vignette and com- plete the same questionnaire packet used in Study 1. Parents were approached at two different day care centers in Boulder, Colorado, and asked if they would be willing to complete a questionnaire packet at home at their convenience and return it to the researchers in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided. Only parents who had at least one child of middle elementary school age were recruited. Instructions on the questionnaire requested that only one parent complete it; thus, each response represents a different family. The ques- tionnaire included a phone number of the researchers, which parents were encouraged to call for information about the study, and all who called were debriefed about the nature of the research. Of 65 questionnaires handed out, 20 were returned with complete data (14 women, 6 men). The 31% return rate is common for surveys of this type (Alreck & Settle, 1985). Nevertheless, the results of studies with this type of return rate should be interpreted on a cautionary note because of concern for external validity.

Results

Results indicated that the mean ratings for the mastery-oriented and helpless characters were significantly different from one another in the direction predicted [t(19) = 5.31, p < .001, M = 2.80 (mastery-oriented) and M = 5.15 (helpless), where 1 = definitely male and 7 = definitely [emale]. In addition, the mean rating for the mastery-oriented character differed from 4.0, the scale midpoint [t(19) = 4.66, p < .001], as did the mean rating for the helpless character It(19) = 5.20, p < .001]. Subject sex was not included in the analyses because of the differential response rate; however, responses of men and women were very similar: for the mastery-oriented character, M = 3.00 for men and M = 2.71 for women, and for the helpless character, M = 5.17 for men and M = 5.14 for women. The findings of this study, then, using a different sample replicate the find- ings of our first study.

STUDY 3

In ou r third study, we examined our g e n d e r - b a s e d expec tancy hypothesis using a vignette including a "feminine"-linked task, i.e., sewing.

Gender-Based Expectancies 495

In the vignette, children were sewing a flag to represent the flag of the country they were studying. The types of behaviors exhibited were similar to those used previously, e.g., whereas B gave up after failing to sew a straight seam and waited for the teacher to offer help, A started over with renewed determination.

Method

Parents were recruited as in Study 2 but from additional schools and with the constraint that no parent who had been in Study 2 could par- ticipate. The procedure was identical to Study 2, and the scenario and ques- tions were identical to those used previously with the exception that the film strip projector section was replaced by the flag sewing one. Similar to Study 2, there was a 28% return rate, typical of surveys of this type (Alreck & Settle, 1985), which resulted in 17 parents (3 men, 8 women, 6 unknown).

Results

Mean ratings for the mastery-oriented and helpless characters were significantly different from one another [t(16) = 2.73, p = .01, M = 2.94 (mastery-oriented) and M = 4.94 (helpless), where 1 = definitely male and 7 = definitely female]. In addition, the mean rating for the mastery-oriented character differed from 4.0, the scale midpoint It(16) = 2.72, p < .05], as did the mean rating for the helpless character [t(16) = 2.61, p < .05]. Sub- ject sex was not included in the analyses because of the large number of parents for whom sex was unknown and the differential response rate be- tween men and women. However, responses for both characters were very similar for men, women, and unknown. {We replicated our gender-based expectancy hypothesis using a third vignette assumed less sex linked than the mechanical skill or sewing tasks, i.e., use of the card catalog in the library. Using the identical questions, eight parents reported the helpless character was female and the mastery-oriented character male t(7) = 2.39, p < .05, M = 5.5 (helpless) and M = 2.5 (mastery- oriented), where 1 = definitely male and 7 = definitely female]. In addition, both means differed significantly from the scale midpoint [4.0; t(7) = 2.37, p < .05].}

The results from this studies examining gender-based expectancies support the hypothesis that, across different tasks often associated with male versus female proficiency, helpless behaviors are associated with females and mastery-oriented behaviors with males. These stereotypes were found for both college-aged adults and two different sets of parents involv- ing different tasks (operating a film strip projector and sewing a flag).

496 Boggiano and Barrett

STUDY 4

Method

Subjects were 30 women from introductory psychology classes who had not participated in Study 1. Female subjects were employed here because elementary school teachers have predominantly been women. An additior~al sample to those used in our first study was selected out of concern that initial gender-related judgments might bias subjects' responses on subsequent judg- ments tapping strategies dealing with a helpless vs. mastery-oriented boy or gift who failed (Deaux, 1976; see also Dweck & Gilliard, 1975). Subjects were randomly assigned to conditions in which they were provided with either a vignette describing a mastery-oriented boy, a mastery-oriented girl, a helpless boy, or a helpless girl who failed an exam. The behaviors in these vignettes were identical to those used in Studies 1 and 2. Subjects were asked to (1) rank order nine strategies that teachers could use to remedy or maximize the child's subsequent achievement, and (2) to rate how effective these strategies would be to help the child perform to the best of his or her ability. After they finished, subjects were fully debriefed.

The strategies provided to subjects to alter or improve a failing per- formance of a child were threat of punishment, use of deadlines, use of extrinsic incentives, comparing the child to his/her peers, providing success feedback when correct responses were given, encouraging effort, not inter- fering so as not make the situation more anxiety provoking, and discussing the problematic situation with the child. A bogus strategy (i.e., encouraging the child to accept the fact that s/he is simply not good at schoolwork) was included to permit variability in the rank order data. Thus, each subject was asked (1) to rank order the nine strategies with regard to how effective they would be remedy the failing performance of the child described, depending on condition, and (2) rate on a 1-7 scale how effective each of the strategies would be for that purpose. To ensure that techniques had been opera t iona l i zed to represent e i ther support ive or control l ing strategies, 17 subjects were presented with a list of the eight nonbogus strategies in random order, and asked to categorize each strategy as sup- portive or coercive. Sixteen of the 17 subjects collectively categorized threat of punishment, use of deadlines, use of extrinsic incentives, and comparing the child to his/her peers all as coercive strategies. Providing success feed- back when correct responses were given, encouraging effort, not interfering so as not make the situation more anxiety provoking, and discussing the problematic situation with the child were collectively categorized as sup- portive strategies by 15 of the 17 subjects.

Gender-Based Expectancies 497

03 t.g

IJJ

n,.

I.I. O 03 ~3 _= ,v. Z re

Z ,,¢ IJJ =E

7. [] BOY SUPPORTIVE

0 GIRL SUPPORTIVE

• BOY COERCIVE

¢1, GIRL COERCIVE

i

HELPLESS

i

MASTERY ORIENTED

O R I E N T A T I O N O F C H I L D

Fig. 2. Mean rankings of coercive and supportive strategies as a function of gender and orientation (helpless/mastery oriented). Higher rankings indicate greater preference for strategy.

Results

Strategy Rank Orders. Although it was assumed that supportive strategies would generally be preferred to more controlling strategies to maximize subsequent performance, the primary prediction was that sup- portive strategies would be preferred for characters who conformed to gender-based expectations (i.e., a mastery-oriented boy or helpless girl), whereas controlling or coercive strategies would be preferred over suppor- tive strategies for characters who violated stereotypes (i.e., a mastery- o r i en ted girl or helpless boy). For each subject, mean ranks were determined separately for the four supportive and the four coercive strategies. Higher mean ranks indicate that the strategies were more preferred. These mean ranks were submitted to a mixed-design analysis of variance with between-subjects factors of character gender and orientation (helpless vs. mastery oriented) and a repeated measures factor on the type

498 Boggiano and Barrett

of strategy employed (supportive vs. controlling). [Viability of using parametric tests in analyzing rank-order data from an experimental design is discussed in Conover (1980) and Conover and Iman (1981).] As predicted, this analysis indicated that supportive strategies were in general ranked more favorably in terms of remedying subsequent achievement than controlling strategies [F(1, 27) = 59.05, p < .001; M = 6.23 and M = 4.46 respectively]. Moreover, the primary prediction that the advocacy of a par- ticular strategy type would be dependent upon the conformity of the vignette to gender role stereotypes was confirmed. The three-way interac- tion of orientation, gender, and strategy type was reliable [F(1, 27) = 4.42, p < .05], indicating supportive strategies were favored when the character did not (see Fig. 2).

This pattern of data is clarified by examining the simple effects of the supportive and controlling strategy types separately. These analyses indicated that for controlling strategy type, the orientation by gender in- teraction was reliable [F(1, 27) = 4.47, p < .05] and for the supportive strategy type, the interaction was in the predicted direction IF(l, 27) = 3.36, p < .08]. Moreover, controlling strategies were preferred more for nonconforming in comparison to conforming characters [F(1, 27) = 7.19, p < .05], as shown in Fig. 2, whereas supportive strategies were favored more for conforming types [F(1, 27) = 5.21, p < .05; (i.e., for conforming girls and boys, M = 6.3 and 6.5, respectively; for nonconforming girls and boys, M = 6.0 and 5.9, respectively)].

Because effort-outcome and success feedback have frequently been employed to reduce helplessness in children (Andrews & Debus, 1978; Chapin & Dyck, 1976; Dweck, 1975; Fowler & Peterson, 1981), we ex- amined subjects' use of these strategies in greater detail. Interestingly, subjects' responses to the supportive strategy of effort was somewhat dif- ferent from the other three strategies. In this case, boys were more apt to receive the increasing effort strategy than girls [F(1, 27) = 4.61, p < .05; M = 8.12 vs. M = 7.07, respectively]. Moreover, effort-outcome was preferred most for mastery-oriented boys and least for helpless girls IF(l, 27) = 5.28, p < .05; M = 8.22 for mastery-oriented boy; M = 6.75 for helpless girl; M = 8.00 for helpless boy, M = 7.50 for mastery-oriented girl]. In addition, an examination of the pattern of the success strategy, which has also been used to reduce helpless deficits, indicated that helpless girls were somewhat more likely to receive success feedback (M = 6.38) than the other characters (M = 5.30), although not significantly (p < .20).

Effectiveness Ratings. As with the rankings, the mean ratings of the effectiveness of coercive and supportive strategies were separately deter- mined. A mixed-design analysis of variance with character gender and orientation as between-subjects factors and ratings for the two strategy

Gender-Based Expectancies 499

t/3 _w LM

n"

U) U. 0 01

_z

er" Z

5 -

4

3

I1 BOY SUPPORTIVE

0 GIRL SUPPORTIVE

| BOY COERCIVE

(k GIRL COERCIVE

I I

~HELPLESS MASTERY ORIENTED

ORIENTATION OF CHILD

Fig. 3. Mean ratings of coercive and supportive strategies as a function of gender and orientation (helpless/mastery oriented). Higher ratings indicated greater effectiveness of strategy.

types as the within-subjects factor revealed a significant main effect for strategy type [F(1, 26) = 42.65, p < .001], indicating that, as expected, the supportive strategy (M = 4.52) was generally believed more effective than the coercive strategy (M = 3.12). Although the primary prediction that bel iefs abou t the relative effect iveness of controll ing vs. support ive strategies would differ as a function of sex role appropriateness was mar- ginal (F = 3.46, p < .07), the pattern of means is comparable to the rank- ings (see Fig. 3), indicating that supportive strategies were preferred relative to controlling ones for vignettes consistent with stereotypes and controlling strategies preferred relative to supportive ones for vignettes that were inconsistent.

Again, we examined the presence of stereotyped effects within ratings of supportive and controlling strategies separately. Supportive strategies were rated as more effective for vignettes consistent with the stereotypes than for those that were not [F(1, 26) = 4.20, p = .05]. Although not sig- nificant, the pattern of mean ratings for controlling strategies was also in

500 Boggiano and Barrett

the predicted direction, with controlling strategies receiving higher mean ratings for vignettes consistent with sex stereotypes than for vignettes that were not (see Fig. 3). Finally, the correlation between supportive rankings and supportive ratings was significant [r(29) = .67, p < .001], as was the correlation between coercive rankings and ratings, [r(29) = .73, p < .001].

An examination of the effort-outcome and success strategies using the ratings indicated that, although not significant, the same pattern of findings as in the rank-order data emerged for both strategies. Success received somewhat higher ratings for helpless girls (M = 4.50) than the other char- acters (M = 3.63). Effort was rated higher for boys (M = 5.86) than girls (Mr = 5.46), and effort-outcome was believed most effective with mastery- oriented boys (M = 6.22) and least effective with helpless girls [M = 5.25; F(1, 27) = 2.40, p < .15]. The correlation between the rankings and ratings for effort was significant [1"(29) = .70, p < .001] as was the correlation be- tween rankings and ratings for the success strategy [1"(29) = .86, p < .001].

STUDY 5

The data from our first four studies provide support for the hypothesis that helpless behaviors are seen as more characteristic of girls in com- parison with boys, whereas mastery-oriented behaviors are believed to char- acterize boys more than girls. Moreover, the results of Study 4 supported the hypothesis that under conditions in which boys and girls approach an achievement situation in a manner inconsistent with expectancies or stereotypic conceptions, there was a relatively greater reliance on control- ling rather than supportive strategies. Because previous research has demonstrated that use of controlling strategies such as extrinsic incentives, threat of punishment, or use of deadlines has adverse effects on several indices of achievement such as reducing creativity, problem-solving skills, and intrinsic motivation (Flink et al., 1990; however, see Harackiewicz & Larson, 1986), the finding that use of these techniques is based on gender- appropriate behavior has practical as well as theoretical import (Amabile, 1983; Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976; Boggiano, Ruble, & Pittman, 1982; Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985, 1987, in press; Lepper & Greene, 1978; McGraw & McCullers , 1979; Pi t tman, Emery, & Boggiano, 1982). Moreover, even comparing children to peers generally decreases sub- sequent motivation, particularly for females (Lenney, 1977), unless the child being compared with others happens to outperform his or her peers (Bog- giano & Ruble, 1979, 1986; Ruble, Boggiano, Feldman, & Loebl, 1980).

Although supportive strategies were preferred more for gender-ap- propriate than gender-inappropriate types, use of different supporting

Gender-Based Expectancies 501

strategies was found to depend to some extent on whether the child who failed was a helpless girl or mastery-oriented boy. Use of effort-outcome, a strategy shown to often accelerate academic improvement (Eccles & Wig- field, 1985), was used most with mastery oriented boys and least with help- less girls as a means of improving subsequent performance. Conversely, helpless girls, in comparison to all other children, were to some extent more apt to receive success feedback, which research suggest may not be as beneficial as effort-outcome training, depending on the manner and timing of the feedback provided (Dweck, 1975). It should be noted that while studies consistently indicate the effectiveness of attributional retraining or effort-outcome as a strategy to reduce helplessness (Andrews & Debus, 1978; Chapin & Dyck, 1976; Fowler & Peterson, 1981), few studies have directly examined the relative benefit of success feedback vs. effort-out- come for this purpose (Dweck, 1975).

Because of the theoretical significance of this issue, an additional study was conducted to examine further the question of adults' relative preference for effor t -outcome feedback vs. positive feedback. In Study 4, the strategy relevant to use of positive feedback was adapted directly from Dweck (1975). In the present study, we reoperationalized positive feedback in the following manner. Instead of emphasizing that adults should point out successes or correct responses, positive feedback was defined as praising the child for subsequent correct solutions, thereby making salient approval of and not simply feedback about successful outcome. Our major question in Study 5, then, centered on adults' preferences for use of praise feedback vs. encouraging effort with boys vs. girls displaying helpless vs. mastery- oriented behaviors.

Method

To examine the question about subjects' use of the two supportive strategies (i.e., encouraging effort vs. giving praise) when confronted with a helpless vs. mastery-oriented child, 148 subjects (51 men and 73 women) recruited from introductory psychology courses read vignettes identical to those employed in the previous studies describing a mastery-oriented or helpless boy or girl, and were asked to rate how effective (on scales of 1-7) each of the two supportive strategies would be in increasing the child's motivation to maximize subsequent achievement after a child performed inadequately. As in Study 4, the encouraging effort strategy involved em- phasizing the role of the child's own effort or "having tried hard" after successes and needing to "try harder" after failures (Chapin & Dyck, 1976; Dweck, 1975). The praise strategy was operationalized by the statement,

502 Boggiano and Barrett

"Praise John (Mary) when he (she) gives a correct answer or response," in contrast to Study 3 where the success strategy, based on Dweck (1975), centered on pointing out the child's successful performance or correct responses. After making their ratings, subjects were debriefed about the nature of the study.

Results

The mean ratings for effort and praise were submitted to a mixed- design analysis of variance with subject sex, character sex, and character orientation as between-subjects variables, and a repeated measures factor for type of strategy. This analysis revealed a main effect for strategy type [F(1, 144) = 94.64, p < .001], indicating that praise was generally preferred over effort (M = 5.8 vs. 4.8, respectively). In addition, there was a sig- nificant interaction between strategy type and character orientation [F(1, 144) = 21.74, p < .001], indicating that effort was generally preferred to praise for mastery-oriented children (M = 4.8 and 4.2, respectively) and praise generally preferred to effort for helpless children (M = 6.1 and 5.5, respectively). No other main effects or interactions were significant. As in Study 4, we then turned to an examination of the ef for t and praise strategies respectively.

Although the analysis described above did not show that use of effort depended on gender in conjunction with mastery orientation, we tested this hypothesis using a planned contrast because of the pattern of data obtained from Study 4. This contrast was consistent with the hypothesis that effort would most likely be used with mastery-oriented boys and least for helpless girls [F(1, 144) = 7.5, p < .01; M = 4.9 vs. M = 3.9, for mastery-oriented boys vs. helpless girls; M = 4.3 vs. M = 4.7, for helpless boys and mastery- oriented girls, respectively]. For praise, the predicted gender by orientation interaction was not significant, perhaps reflecting a ceiling effect, i.e., the ratings for praise for both the helpless boy and girl were 6.1 on the 7-point scale, although as previously mentioned, praise was generally preferred to effort for helpless children.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The pattern of results obtained in the present set of studies suggest that children who behave in ways that adults perceive as atypical in terms of gender-appropriate behaviors may be treated, at least in an academic domain, differently from others who conform to gender role norms. More

Gender-Based Expectancies 503

specifically, when presented with different scenarios about a gender-ap- propriate (i.e., mastery-oriented) boy who is failing, adults adopt strategies that would appear to conform to gender role stereotypes, i.e., independence in boys, to maximize their subsequent achievement and thus prefer to em- phasize the importance of the boys' own effort. For gender-appropriate girls, on the other hand, strategies that could be considered nurturant, but that often do not overcome helplessness, are preferred. Conversely, al- though supportive strategies were preferred overall, the use of controlling or coercive strategies were performed over supportive strategies for gender- inappropriate boys and girls. Although we examined only females' preferred use of the different strategies and thus cannot make predictions about males' preference for the full range of strategies, depending on the motiva- tional orientation and sex of the child, both our male and female subjects made equivalent inferences about the gender of the child, depending on sexual stereotypes embedded in the scenario provided (cf. Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1970).

What are the processes underlying the link between teacher expec- tancies and differential treatment of students? One possible explanation is that the mechanisms underlying treatment of boys and girls in our study, depending on the motivational orientation of the child, are similar to those accounting for teachers' differential responses to low- vs. high-expectancy students. Clearly, strategies used by teachers with low-expectancy students (e.g., monitoring students' ongoing performance) are employed for the pur- pose of enhancing as opposed to producing impaired achievement in those students. Correspondingly, although different expectancies may in an al- most "automatic" manner lead to the adoption of a certain kind of strategy, depending on a teacher's expectation about that student, it is believed teachers anticipate that the strategy will be beneficial for the student in- volved. However, while much research documents the relation between teacher expectancies and correspondent differential feedback to students, depending on expectancies, there is relatively little kszG'¢,ll about why ex- pectancies lead teachers to adopt and use different forms of treatment (Jus- sim, 1986). Thus, although we will discuss one potential account of the factors that may mediate the relation between teacher expectancies and treatment of students, depending on a child's gender and motivational orientation, this explanation is admittedly highly speculative.

On theoretical perspective of the expectancy confirmation process emphasizes both the role of negative affective responses of teachers toward students who disconfirm expectancies and teachers' subsequent desire to control the behavior of those students. As applied to the present findings, girls who attempt to remedy a failing performance by avoiding teacher as- sistance and boys asking for help from teachers instead of independently

504 Boggiano and Barrett

working out difficult problems would violate expectancies. According to Jussim (1986), negative affect may be engendered under these conditions, in a manner comparable to teachers' negative reactions toward low-expec- tancy students performing successfully (Rubobitz & Maehr, 1971, cited in Jussim, 1986). The second step in the proposed model is teachers' need to assert control over the behaviors and activities of students for whom nega- tive affect is experienced (Cooper, 1979). Teachers are more apt to provide a less supportive environment, i.e., less praise for success and effort, and are more likely to monitor and structure the behaviors of those students arousing negative affect to promote the opportunity to control, direct, and change the behaviors of those students. Use of deadlines, threat of punish- ment, extrinsic inducements, and directing childrens' attention toward other childrens' performance level would serve to provide a sufficiently control- ling environment to enhance the teacher's perceptions of control over those students in this regard. Although the present data do not provide direct support for this two-step process, they are at least consistent with Jussim's model, which posits (1) negative affective responses toward expectancy-dis- confirming students (e.g., passive boys or high-performing low-expectancy students) and (2) the subsequent use of strategies to control and monitor the behavior of those students. However, because these mechanisms were not examined in the present study, they should be considered highly ten- tative.

A second explanation that may follow from the negative affective mechanism discussed above centers on the potential underlying attributions made with children behaving in an atypical way in the classroom. Helpless boys and mastery-oriented girls may be viewed as behaving in non-norma- tive ways as a means of "acting out" or displaying passive-aggressive be- havior. Girls performing schoolwork independently without much concern for teacher approval and boys behaving in a passive and helpless manner may be perceived as behaving "contrarily" (Fagot, 1978). Thus, reactions to achievement-related behaviors of children may be contingent on the type of attribution made that, in turn, may depend on the gender of the child performing those behaviors. This explanation receives some support in our pretest data, where adults' responses to children acting out intentionally parallel their responses to children behaving in a gender-inappropriate manner (see Fig. 1). This explanation for preference for coercive techniques for gender-inappropriate types is, however, admittedly highly indirect, and thus should also be considered tentative.

Although adults' responses to children may be affected by their affect and/or attributions, it seems unlikely that they would be fully conscious of the impact of the gender of a child in responding to or making judgments about that child's performance in an achievement context. Previous re-

Gender-Based Expectancies 505

search suggests that respondents are often unaware of differential nonver- bal behaviors and treatment toward blacks as opposed to whites (Word et al., 1974). Similarly, with regard to socializing agents' responses to children behaving in gender-inappropriate ways, although parents' values suggest an active striving toward sex equity for their children (as indexed by self-report data), parents often behave toward their children in ways correspondent with traditional gender role stereotypes (Fagot, 1978). This differential treatment of girls and boys socializing agents, then, which may not be con- scious or necessarily correspond to reported attitudes or values, suggests one means by which adults may influence the development of divergent approaches to achievement-related tasks, depending on the gender of the child.

In addition to determinants of use of controlling as opposed to dif- ferent supportive strategies, a second major question addressed was the conditions under which praise and effort encouragement, the latter fre- quently termed attributional retraining, would be viewed as effective tools to counteract negative performance in children. Studies 3 and 4 provided conflicting findings, with the data from Study 3 essentially suggesting that information about correct responses (success feedback) is preferred less than attributional retraining, whereas in Study 4 praise was considered more effective than the attribution strategy. As noted previously, use of praise may be preferred over providing correct feedback because the former may be perceived as reflecting approval or nurturance. Because findings demonstrate that adults' value approval or praise (Kazdin & Wil- son, 1978), future research might examine the relative benefit for helpless children in using combinations of these 'strategies: Praising a child for making effort attributions after inadequate performance may induce the child to take responsibility for outcome within an affectively positive and accepting context.

The finding that adults prefer strategies that imply that boys' motivational level is the probable cause of failing performance is sup- ported by previous findings in a naturalistic setting (Dweck et al., 1978). Teachers ascribe boys' failure to motivational factors eight times more often than attributions to effort for girls for comparably poor perfor- mance. Of course, it may be the case that boys actually do exert less effort or manifest less stable effort than girls in circumscribed school activities. This finding may also reflect adults' beliefs that boys overall need more monitoring than females in classroom situations (Silvern, 1978). Nevertheless, that girls are not provided with information that they could put forth more effort after a failing experience while observ- ing boys receive this information may lead girls to question their ability as opposed to effort as the reason for inadequate performance. These

506 l|oggiano and Barrett

differential strategies of adults in responding to negative performance of girls and boys may in part account for girls' lower expectancies than boys (Crandail, 1969) and greater likelihood of attribution of failure to ability (Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; Nicholls, 1975).

Intervention strategies are assumed here to be used by adults for the purpose of increasing motivation and achievement, and certainly not for the sake of punishment or ignoring maladaptive behaviors of children. Firm, limit-setting techniques for academic tasks are often necessary in classroom settings and, if children's feelings of self-deter- mination are not reduced, do not necessarily decrease children's motiva- tion (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984). Thus, feedback about performance, approval, and limit-setting strategies are undoubtedly use- ful techniques that could be employed in the classroom. The point made here is that intervention techniques may in part be inadvertently based on the gender of the child and stereotypes associated with that gender (Fagot, 1978).

Although the present findings provide evidence for proposed dif- ferential treatment of girls vs. boys, who are perceived to behave in a helpless vs. mastery-oriented manner, several limitations of the present research should be noted. First, we did not assess the full range of tech- niques that adults may prefer to employ to counteract adequate perfor- mance in children. Second, the age of the child performing a task may well be an important factor influencing adults' judgment about strategies used to facilitate improved performance in children, an issue neglected in the present study (however, see Barrett & Boggiano, 1988). Finally, and probably most importantly, our subjects were primarily college stu- dents, and we did not assess actual behavioral interactions between t e ache r and school -aged chi ldren who per form inadequate ly , a methodology we are presently employing to investigate strategies used in the classroom by teachers with different children. Clearly, long-term exposure and interactions with children may reduce treatment based on expectancies, particularly if disconfirming information is strong and if the characteristics of teachers lead them to be flexible and thus render them likely to modify expectations (Jussim, 1986). Nevertheless, the present findings provide preliminary evidence that steroetypes of adults and implicit theories of the layperson to remedy helpless behaviors (e.g., use of praise with helpless girls) may, although unwittingly, perpetuate helplessness in girls (Dweck, 1975) if expectations are not disconfirmed. If the present findings generalize to a naturalistic setting, these findings would have clear practical significance in educational settings.

Gender-Based Expectancies 507

R E F E R E N C E S

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1985). The sulvey reseamh handbook. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Arnabile, T. M., & Hennessey, B. A. (in press). The motivation for creativity in children. In

A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-develop- mental perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. R. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines of subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92-98.

Andrews, G. R., & Debus, R. L. (1978). Persistence and the causal perception of failure: Modifying cognitive attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 154-166.

Ashmore, R. D., & Tumia, M. (1980). Sex stereotypes and implict personality theory: Toward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization. Sea" Roles, 6, 501-518.

Barrett, M., & Boggiano, A. K. (1988). Fostering extrinsic orientations: Use of reward strategies to motivate children. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 293-309.

Baucom, D. H. (1983). Sex role identity and the decision to regain control among women: A learned helplessness investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 334- 343.

Baucom, D. H., & Danker-Brown, P. (1984). Sex role identity and sex-stereotyped tasks in the development of learned helplessness in women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 422-430.

Blanck, P. D., Reis, H. T., & Jackson, L. (1984). The effects of verbal reinforcements on intrinsic motivation for sex-linked tasks. Sea" Roles, 10, 369-387.

Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1985). Performancc and motivational dcficits of helplessness: The role of motivational orientations. Jau171al of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1753-1761.

Boggiano, A. K., & Main, D. S. (1986). Activities used as rewards: The "Bonus" effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1116-1126.

Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1979). Compctcnce and the ovcrjustification effect: A developmental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1462-1468.

Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1986). Children's responses to evaluative feedback. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.) Self-related cognitions h~ atzxiety and motivation. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children's prefercnce for challcnge: The role of perceived competence and control. Joartlal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 134-141.

Boggiano, A. K., Barrett, M., Shields, A., Flink, C., & Seelbach, A. (1991). Use ofcono'oUing techniques: Effects on student's peJformance and standardized test scores. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Boggiano, A. K., Barrett, M., Weiher, A. W., McClelland, G. H., & Lusk, C. M. (1987). Use of the maximal-operant principle to motivate children's intrinsic interest. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 53, 866-879.

Boggiano, A. K., Harackiewicz, J. M., Bessette, J. M., & Main, D. S. (1985). Increasing children's interest through performance-contingent reward. Social Cognition, 3, 400-411.

Boggiano, A. K., Ruble, D. N., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). The mastery hypothesis and the overjustification effect. Social Cognition, 1, 38-49.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston.

Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S., & Vogel, S. R. (1970). Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 1-7.

Carone, D. P. (1975). The effects of positive verbal feedback on females" inuqnsic motivation. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Bridgeport.

Chapin, M., & Dyck, D. G. (1976). Persistence in children's reading behavior as a function of N length and attribution retraining. Journal of Abnorrnal Psychology, 85, 511-515.

508 lloggiunu and Barrett

Christensen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Gender and nonverbal decoding skill as determinants of interpersonal expectancy effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 75-87.

Condry, J., & Condry, S. (1976). Sex differences: A study of the eye of the beholder. Child Development, 47, 812-819.

Condry, S. M., Condry, J. C., & Pogatshnik, L. W. (1983). Sex differences: A study of the ear of the beholder. Sex Roles, 9, 697-704.

Conover, W. J. (1980). Pract&al nonparametric statistics (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Conover, W. J., & Iman, R. L. (1981). Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric

and nonparametric statistics. The American Statistician, 35, 124-128. Cooper, H. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication and

performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49, 389-410. Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Maracek, J., & Pascala, L. (1975). When stereotypes

hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. Journal of E~perimental Social Psychology, 520-530.

Crandall, V. J. (1969). Sex differences in expectancy in intellectual and academic reinforce- ment. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Achievement-related motives in children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867-881.

Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labelling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33.

Deaux, K. (1976). The behavior of women and men. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks:

What is skill for the male is luch for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 29, 80-85.

Deci, E. L, (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 2Z 113-120.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational proces- ses. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances h7 experimentalsocialpsycholog, (Vol. 13). New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). hTtrinsic motivation and self determination h7 human be- havior New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog% 53, 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (in press). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Deci, E. L., Cascio, W. F., & Krusell, J. (1973). Sex differences, positive feedback and intrinsic motivation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of rewarde~ and intrinsic motivation of rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social P3ychology, 40, 1-10.

Del Boca, F. K., & Ashmore, R. D. (1980). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: II. A trait-inferences approach to the assessment of sex stereotypes. Sea" Roles, 6, 519- 535.

Dweck, C. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned help- lessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog),, 31. 674-685.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 40-49. Dweck, C., & Bush, E. (1976). Sex differences in learned helplessness: (I) Differential debilita-

tion with peer and adult evaluators. Developmental Psychology, 12, 147-156. Dweck, C., & GiUiard, D. (1975). Expectancy statements as determinants of reactions to

failure: Sex differences in persistence and expectancy change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1077-1084.

Dweck, C., & Goetz, T. (1978). Attributions and learned helplessness. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gender-Based Expectancies 509

Dweck, C., & Licht, B. (1980). Learned helplessness and intellectual achievement. In J. Garber & M. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: Theory and application. New York: Academic Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement respon- sibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109-116.

Dweck, C., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helpless- ness: 1I. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and II1. An experimen- tal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268-276.

Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1985). Teacher expectations and student motivation. In J. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eccles (Parsons), J., Midgely, C., & Adler, T. F. (1984). Sex differences in the school en- vironment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. H. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of ach&vement motivation. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Fagot, B. I. (1978). The influence of sex of child on parental reactions to toddler children. ChiM Development, 49, 459-465.

Fagot, B. 1. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principal, another step toward undcrstanding sex role development. Developmental Psycholo~,, 6, 1097-1104.

Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining children's self-determination and pcrformancc. Journal of Personality and Social Psychof ogy, 59, 916-924.

Fowler, J. W., & Peterson, P. L. (1981). Increasing reading persistence and altering attribu- tional style of learned helpless children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73, 251-260.

Harackiewicz, J. M. (1979). The effects of reward contingency and performance feedback on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1352-1363.

Harackiewicz, J. M., and Larson, J. R., Jr. (1986). Managing motivation: The impact of su- pervisor feedback on subordinate task interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 51, 547-556.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Manderlink, G., & Sansone, C. (1984). Rewarding pinball wizardry: Ef- fects of evaluation and cue value on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 287-300.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Abrahams, S., & Wageman, R. (1987). Performance evaluation and in- trinsic motivation: The effects of evaluative focus, rewards, and achievement orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1015-1023.

Jussim, L. (1986). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative review. Psychological Review, 93, 429-445.

Kast, A. C. (1983). Sex differences in intrinsic motivation: A developmental analysis of the effects of social rewards. Unpublished dissertation, Fordham University.

Kazdin, A. E., & Wilson, G. T. (1978). Evaluation of behavior therapy: Issues, evidence, and research strategies. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's be- havior: The differential effect of controlling versus intbrmational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233-248.

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

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1978). The hMden costs of reward. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum. Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal

of Experimental Psychology: General, 105, 3-46. McGraw, K. O., & McCullers, J. C. (1979). evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic in-

centives on breaking a mental set. Journal of E~perimenlal Social Psycholo$o; 15, 285-294. Nicholls, J. (1975). Causal attributions and other achievement related cognitions: Effects of

task outcome, attainment value and sex. Journal of Personality and Social P~ychology 33, 379-389.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259-282.

510 Boggiano and Barrett

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (19861. Learned helplessness in children: A longitudinal study of depression, achievement, and explanatory style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 435-442.

Parsons, J. (1981). Sex differences in achievement patterns. Paper presented at the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

Parsons, J., Kaczala, C., & Meece, J. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: classroom influences. Child Development, 53, 322-339.

Parsons, J., Ruble, D., Hodges, K. L., & Small, A. W. (1976). Cognitive-developmental factors in emerging sex differences in achievement-related expectancies. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 47-63.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347-374.

Pittman, T. S., Emery, J., & Boggiano, A. K. (1982). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orien- tations: Reward induced changes in preferenccs for complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 789-797.

Radloff, L. S. (1975). Sex differences in depression: Thc effects of occupation and marital status. Sex Roles, 1, 249-265.

Ransen, D. L. (1980). The medication of rcward-induccd motivation decrcmcnts in carly and middle childhood: A template matching approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1088-1100.

Ruble, D. N., & Ruble, T. L. (19801. Scx stcreotypcs. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), h~ the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Ruble, D. N., Boggiano, A. K., Feldman, N, S., & Loebl, J. H. (1980). Developmental analysis of the role of social comparison in self-evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 16, 105-115.

Ruble, T. L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970's. Sea" Roles, 9, 397-402. Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and

projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Human helplessness: 017 depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman.

Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In L. Berkowtiz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18). New York: Academic Press.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social pcrccption and interpersonal be- havior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stcrcotypcs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.

Solomon, D. (1982). Theory and research on children's achievement. In J. Worell (Ed.), Psychological development in the elementary years. New York: Academic Press.

Spence, J. T., Deaux, K., & Helmreich, R. L. (1985). Sex roles in contemporary American society. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Random House.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (19741. The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog Selected Docu- ments in Psychology, 4, 43.

Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mcdiation of self-fulling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of E.~perimental Social Psychology, 10, 109- 120.