PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Biernat, Vescio / STANDARDS AND INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR
She Swings, She Hits, She’s Great, She’s Benched:
Implications of Gender-Based Shifting Standards
for Judgment and Behavior
Monica Biernat
University of Kansas
Theresa K. Vescio
Pennsylvania State University
The implications of the shifting standards model for under-
standing behavior toward stereotyped groups were examined in
two studies on gender and athleticism. Participants played the
role of co-ed softball team managers, who made team selections,
position assignments, and judgments about a series of male and
female players. The data supported three hypotheses: (a) Stereo-
types of male superiority as athletes lead to the use of shifting
standards to judge athletic performance; (b) zero-sum behaviors
(allocation of limited resources) show evidence of pro-male bias,
whereas non-zero-sum behaviors (verbal and nonverbal reac-
tions) show evidence of pro-female bias; and (c) objective judg-
ments are somewhat better predictors of zero-sum behaviors,
whereas subjective judgments are better predictors of non-zero-
sum behaviors.
Social psychologists have long been interested in the
influence that stereotypes of social groups have on judg-
ments of individual group members (for reviews, see
Fiske, 1998; Hamilton & Sherman, 1994; Kunda &
Thagard, 1996; Stangor & Lange, 1994; von Hippel,
Sekaquaptewa, & Vargas, 1995). The persistence of this
interest stems partly from the assumption that stereo-
typic judgment importantly underlies intergroup behav-
ior and partly from the complex and sometimes
counterintuitive nature of the influence of stereotypes.
Although it is often the case that stereotypes exert an
assimilative influence on judgments of individual group
members (such that individual targets are evaluated con-
sistently with stereotypes), there is ample evidence that
members of negatively stereotyped groups sometimes
receive equally positive (or more positive) evaluations
than do members of positively stereotyped groups.
These conflicting effects have most often been explained
66
in terms of whether stereotypes serve as interpretive
frames or comparative standards.
Most common in the literature is research and theory
suggesting that stereotypes provide interpretive frame-
works that guide the encoding and processing of infor-
mation, resulting in assimilative (or stereotype-consis-
tent) judgments of individual group members (e.g.,
Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). But stereotypes
also may provide perceivers with standards against which
individual group members are compared. This is the
premise of the “shifting standards model,” which sug-
gests that group members are judged on stereotypic
dimensions with reference to the expectations associated
with their particular category membership (Biernat &
Manis, 1994; Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991). Thus,
women may be judged relative to women and men rela-
tive to men. The result is that judgments may reveal con-
trast effects (e.g., women judged more financially suc-
cessful than men, despite earning less money) or null
effects of stereotyping (e.g., men and women judged
equally tall, despite men’s perceived objective height
being taller) (Biernat et al., 1991).
A number of social judgment researchers have fo-
cused attention on the factors that influence whether
assimilative (stereotypic) or contrastive (nonstereotypic)
Authors’ Note: This research was supported by National Institute of
Mental Health Grant No. R01MH48844 awarded to the first author. We
are grateful to Janet Swim and Chris Crandall for their helpful com-
ments on an earlier draft of this article. Correspondence concerning
this article should be addressed to Monica Biernat, Department of Psy-
chology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045-
7556; e-mail: biernat@ku.edu.
PSPB, Vol. 28 No. 1, January 2002 66-77
© 2002 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
 Biernat, Vescio / STANDARDS AND INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR
judgments might result (e.g., target extremity: Manis,
Nelson, & Shedler, 1988; concreteness vs. abstractness of
stereotypic knowledge: Stapel & Koomen, 1998; Stapel,
Koomen, & van der Pligt, 1997; stereotype-consistency of
targets: Bettencourt, Dill, Greathouse, Charlton, &
Mulholland, 1997; Jussim, Coleman, & Lerch, 1987).
However, the shifting standards model suggests that
both effects may emerge in the same context but under
different judgment conditions (Biernat & Manis, 1994;
Biernat, Manis, & Kobrynowicz, 1997; Biernat et al.,
1991). The present research was designed to explore a
provocative behavioral question this suggestion raises. If
both stereotypic and counter- or non-stereotypic judg-
ments of a target emerge in a given context, is behavior
toward that target more likely to follow from one’s rela-
tively positive or negative judgment?
Judgment Effects
Much research on the shifting standards model has
documented that counterstereotypic or nonstereotypic
judgment patterns tend to be documented on subjective
response scales, whereas stereotype-assimilative patterns
tend to emerge on objective scales. Subjective scales are
those that rely on numbers and language that are open
to interpretation because they have no explicit ties to
external reality (e.g., Likert-type scales or semantic dif-
ferentials; good/poor, heavy/light, weak/strong). In
contrast, objective scales are “common rule” in nature—
they are tied to units of measure that cannot be differen-
tially adjusted depending on the category membership
of those being evaluated (e.g., dollars earned, inches,
estimated standardized test score). Because their units
have a constant meaning, objective response scales are
readily able to capture perceivers’ available stereotyped
perceptions. And because subjective language can shift
in meaning depending on who is being described (e.g.,
“good” can mean something different when applied to a
woman than a man), stereotyping effects may be masked
or reversed.
Greater evidence of stereotyping on objective than
subjective response scales is the signature shifting stan-
dards pattern, and it has been documented with regard
to gender in the domains of height, weight, financial sta-
tus, verbal ability, job competence, and leadership, and
with regard to race in the domains of verbal ability, ath-
leticism, and job competence (Biernat, Crandall, Young,
Kobrynowicz, & Halpin, 1998; Biernat & Kobrynowicz,
1997; Biernat & Manis, 1994; Biernat et al., 1991). How-
ever, all of these findings represent judgment effects; less
clear are the implications of such judgment patterns for
behavior toward members of stereotyped groups.
Exploring these implications is the purpose of the pres-
ent research.
67
We assume, generally, that perceivers behave toward
individual group members in a manner consistent with
their judgments. From the shifting standards perspec-
tive, however, the critical question is whether perceivers
behave in accordance with their subjective or with their
objective judgments. For example, if a given man and
woman receive equally laudable subjective evaluations
(e.g., both are “very good”) but the woman receives
more negative objective evaluations than the man (e.g.,
she is predicted to generate less sales revenue), how will
an employer behave toward these two targets?
Zero-Sum and Non-Zero-Sum Behaviors
To answer this question, we make a distinction
between two broad categories or forms of behavior—
those that involve allocation of limited resources and
those that do not. Included in the first category are
actions characterized by the fact that behaving toward
one individual restricts the behavioral options that are
available toward another. Thus, behavioral choices (e.g.,
who gets promoted, who is assigned to the best tasks or
positions) and allocation of “valuable” assets (e.g.,
money) have a zero-sum quality and are highly meaning-
ful to recipients in that tangible resources are at stake.
The second class of behaviors has a non-zero-sum char-
acter in that the same or similar actions can be bestowed
on a limitless number of targets without resource deple-
tion. Falling under this category are such behaviors as
nonverbal cues, verbal praise or punishment, and so
forth. Thus, a hiring decision is a zero-sum behavior—by
hiring one individual, others are rejected. In contrast, a
pleasant behavioral interaction style (e.g., smiling, mak-
ing eye contact, etc.) is a non-zero-sum behavior that can
be displayed to many individuals without being expended.
These behavior types parallel the objective/subjective
judgment distinction outlined above. Zero-sum behav-
iors, similar to objective judgments, require that one
take a “cross-category” or “absolute” perspective on the
set of actors being evaluated—each actor’s standing can
be interpreted unambiguously in the context of the oth-
ers. For example, a favorable hiring decision is similar to
a high estimated standardized test score in that both can
be understood at face value and interpreted as evidence
of one actor’s higher standing relative to all others in the
set (regardless of category membership). Because of this
similarity, we suggest that zero-sum behaviors will gener-
ally coincide with objective target judgments.
On the other hand, non-zero-sum behaviors are simi-
lar to subjective judgments in that both invoke a “within-
category” perspective by which actors are compared to
group expectations. For example, non-zero-sum behav-
iors such as cheers or smiles reflect a “wow” effect—they
are demonstrations of surprise that an individual has sur-
passed a low performance standard for his or her group.
68 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Similarly, a very positive subjective evaluation is based on
the violation of a negative group expectation. For this
reason, we predict that non-zero-sum behaviors will gen-
erally be consistent with subjective judgments of group
members. In short, we suggest that objective judgments
will be better predictors of zero-sum behaviors than sub-
jective judgments but that subjective judgments will be
better predictors of non-zero-sum behaviors than objec-
tive judgments.
Some empirical evidence that is consistent with the
prediction regarding zero-sum behaviors can be found
in a field study that examined gender effects on subordi-
nate and supervisor cross-evaluations (Gupta, Jenkins, &
Beehr, 1983). Using a sample of employees from a broad
range of work settings, these researchers found an over-
all tendency for women (both supervisors and subordi-
nates) to be subjectively evaluated more positively than
men. At the same time, however, the behavior of employ-
ers toward the employees seemed more consistent with a
stereotype-consistent objective representation of men as
better than women—male subordinates were awarded
more promotions and pay raises than the same women
who were subjectively evaluated so positively. Gupta et al.
(1983) write about employers’ treatment of women as
follows: “While opinions (evaluations) may be positive,
actions (promotions) still follow tradition” (p. 183).
Similarly, in the domain of race, Weitz (1972) studied
the behavioral choices of White participants who were
led to believe that they would be interacting with either a
Black or White partner. She found that although some
Whites reported extremely positive subjective feelings of
“friendliness” toward their Black partners, these same
individuals engaged in the most negative behavioral
responses to the partner (e.g., they were less likely to
choose to wait with the partner during a break in the
experiment and they chose to interact with the partner
in only the least intimate of experimental tasks). We con-
ceptualize these as zero-sum behaviors in that they
involve choices between alternatives: waiting with the
partner (vs. alone) and selecting among seven tasks
those three that one would prefer to do alone rather
than with the partner. Again, behavior followed not from
the subjective sense of friendliness but rather from the
stereotypical representation of Blacks as less desirable
partners than Whites.
With regard to non-zero-sum behavior, the extant evi-
dence is less abundant and clear. However, a study by
Harber (1998) examined the written feedback that
White judges offered to either Black or White authors of
poorly written essays. Consistent with the notion that
positive non-zero-sum behaviors reflect the surpassing of
low performance standards, comments on essay content
(a non-zero-sum behavior) were more favorable and sup-
portive for Black than White authors, as were subjective
evaluations. For example, Black writers were told how
much “potential” was in the essay; White writers were
told “when I read college work this bad I just want to lay
my head down on the table and cry” (Harber, 1998, p. 625).
In a more direct demonstration of standard-setting,
Biernat and Kobrynowicz (1997) also found lower stan-
dards for women and Blacks to minimally qualify as com-
petent for a job (relative to White men). Although these
may seem like positive outcomes for Blacks and women,
Foschi (1992) describes low standards of this sort, and
the reaction to their being surpassed, as “patronizing” in
nature (p. 195)—the positivity does not reflect sincere
judgment of quality (see also Jackman, 1994). Patron-
izing standards and their resultant favorable subjective
evaluations and non-zero-sum behaviors can be con-
trasted with zero-sum behaviors: Zero-sum behavioral
choices are based not on the target’s success in surpass-
ing a lenient standard but on the objective representa-
tion of devalued groups as being less good, able, compe-
tent, and so forth, than valued or high-status groups.
The Present Studies
To put these ideas about judgment and behavior to a
more rigorous test, we turned to the domain of athleti-
cism and to the stereotype that men have superior ath-
letic ability relative to women. Consider a sport in which
both men and women participate: co-ed softball. In this
context, a male and female player may both be perceived
as “very good.” Nonetheless, we suspect that women
afforded this label are assumed to hit and throw with less
power than “very good” men. This occurs, presumably,
because of shifting standards; looked at in a different
manner, a female player might more readily be labeled
“excellent” than a male player who performs the same
because she is being evaluated with respect to lower stan-
dards. Hypothesis 1 is that judgments of male and female
softball players will show the typical shifting standards
effect: Men will be judged objectively better than women
(e.g., in expected batting average), but this effect will be
masked in subjective evaluations (e.g., “good” vs. “poor”).
In the domain of softball, zero-sum behaviors include
such decisions as who is chosen for the team, who plays
key positions (e.g., shortstop), and the order in which
players bat (e.g., top vs. bottom of the batting order).
Non-zero-sum behaviors include pats on the back,
cheers and praise following a performance, and a variety
of nonverbal responses. Hypothesis 2 of our research is
that zero-sum behaviors will favor male over female play-
ers (e.g., men more likely to be chosen for a team, to play
key positions, and to bat early in the lineup) but that
non-zero-sum behaviors will more likely favor female as
opposed to male players (e.g., females more likely than
males to be praised for the same performance). Finally,
Hypothesis 3 predicts that judgments will be correlated
 Biernat, Vescio / STANDARDS AND INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR
with behavior in the manner specified above: Objective
judgments will better predict zero-sum behaviors than
will subjective judgments, whereas subjective judgments
will better predict non-zero-sum behaviors than will
objective judgments (see also Biernat, Vescio, & Manis,
1998).
We report two studies designed to test these three pre-
dictions. In both studies, participants were asked to play
the role of a softball team manager, making such behav-
ioral decisions as who should play on the team and what
positions they should play. Potential team members were
men and women who had been subjectively equated in
terms of their athletic ability in a pretest session (low,
moderate, or high in athletic ability). The inclusion of
targets of different levels of athleticism was done to
examine constraints on the processes described above.
Much research suggests that both stereotypes (e.g., tar-
get gender) and individuating information (e.g.,
appearance-based athleticism) influence judgment, and
indeed, individuating information often plays the larger
role (see Kunda & Thagard, 1996). We suspected that for
clearly nonathletic and clearly athletic-appearing tar-
gets, the effects of stereotypes would be less strong;
instead, most of the “action” of stereotyping should be
observed for the moderately athletic, more ambiguous
targets. As Stapel and Winkielman (1998) put it, a con-
struct “will be a guide to interpretation only when there
is something to be interpreted, that is, when the target
stimulus is ambiguous rather than unambiguous” (p. 635).
In short, gender-based judgment and behavioral effects
were expected to be strongest for those targets who were
moderately athletic in appearance.
In Study 1, we examined managers’ objective judg-
ments and zero-sum behavioral choices of these subjec-
tively equated male and female players. This study
allowed for a test of the zero-sum behavioral prediction
of Hypothesis 2. In Study 2, participants made both sub-
jective and objective assessments of players’ batting and
fielding abilities, thereby allowing a test of the shifting
standards judgment prediction (Hypothesis 1), and also
engaged in a non-zero-sum behavioroid activity, thereby
allowing a fuller test of Hypotheses 2 and 3.
STUDIES 1 AND 2
Method
Because the procedures of the two studies were quite
similar, they are described jointly below. The studies
were conducted during successive semesters, so there
was no overlap in the samples. Participants in Study 1
were 97 undergraduates (57 women, 39 men, 1 unspeci-
fied) and in Study 2 were 67 undergraduates (28 women,
39 men) at the University of Kansas who were enrolled in
introductory psychology courses. All received course
69
credit for their participation and were run through the
procedure individually. After arriving at the lab, partici-
pants were told to imagine they were managers of a co-ed
softball team and that their job was to engage in all the
decision making that a real manager would do in putting
together and fielding a team.1
Participants were provided with photographs of 18 po-
tential White players—9 men and 9 women. These pho-
tos were high school yearbook pictures that were
selected for use on the basis of two pretesting sessions.
Specifically, 28 participants in the first pretest were asked
to sort a series of slides (all drawn from yearbooks) into
categories of high (rating = 4), moderate, (rating = 3), slight
(rating = 2), and low athleticism (rating = 1). These sorts
were done separately for the male and female groups
such that perceived athleticism was defined in a within-
sex fashion. For use in these studies, we chose three pho-
tographs of each sex that were consensually indicated to
be high, moderate, and low in athleticism (e.g., three
highly athletic men, three highly athletic women, three
moderately athletic men, etc.). Specifically, the low-ath-
letic female targets received a subjective athletic rating
of 1.35 (low athletic male M = 1.43), the mean for moder-
ately athletic female targets was 2.54 (moderate male M =
2.50), and the mean for highly athletic female targets
was 3.68 (high male M = 3.43). These subjective ratings
within and across athleticism level were statistically
equivalent for male and female targets.
Because the first pretest allowed for only within-sex
comparisons, we conducted a second, cross-sex compari-
son pretest in which the entire set of photos selected
from the first pretest was given to a new set of 10 under-
graduate judges (6 women, 4 men). The photos were
presented in one random order, and judges were asked
to rate “how athletic” they appeared to be on a 1 (not at
all athletic) to 7 (very athletic) response scale. Low-athletic
women (M = 2.68) were judged equivalent to low-athletic
men (M = 2.85, p > .50), moderately athletic women (M =
4.50) were judged equivalent to moderately athletic men
(M = 4.90, p > .20), and high-athletic women (M = 5.47)
were judged somewhat more athletic than high-athletic
men (M = 4.97, p < .05). Although we hoped to equate
the targets in perceived athleticism, this latter pattern
(which likely reflects use of shifting standards) actually
provides a more conservative test of our hypothesis that
women will be objectively evaluated and treated more
negatively than males.
In the main study, the set of 18 selected photos was
presented to participants in a single, randomly ordered
stack and identified by letters (Persons A through R). As
their first task, the “managers” were asked to sort
through the photos and to select their team. Of the 18
potential players, they were asked to choose 13 to be on
their team (i.e., to reject 5 players). The unselected pho-
70 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
tos were then removed by the experimenter. After choos-
ing a team, participants were next asked “to decide who
will play in which positions in your starting lineup.” Par-
ticipants were provided with a list of 10 positions—
pitcher, catcher, first base, second base, third base, short-
stop, right field, right center field, left field, and left cen-
ter field—and indicated by letter which player they
wanted to place in each position. This system required
that 3 players be “benched.” The next task was for partici-
pants to create a batting order for the 10 starting players;
participants again were allowed to sort and handle the
photos in any way they desired to make these decisions.
All of the choices—team selection, benchings, batting
order, and fielding positions—were conceptualized as
zero-sum behaviors.
In the next series of judgments, participants were
asked to consider the entire set of photos again, includ-
ing those they had rejected or benched. For each player,
presented on a screen in slide format in the original A to
R order, participants estimated a seasonal batting aver-
age and fielding error rate (in percentages). These were
conceptualized as objective judgments.
In addition to the above measures (which were
included in both Studies 1 and 2), Study 2 added several
other dependent variables and involved some amend-
ments to the general procedure. First, in addition to esti-
mating batting averages and error rates of the players in
“objective” units, participants were asked to rate these
abilities on subjective judgment scales (i.e., 1 = very poor
hitter to 7 = very good hitter; 1 = very poor fielder to 7 = very
good fielder). These subjective estimates, along with the
objective judgments, will allow for a direct test of
Hypothesis 1.
Second, a measure of non-zero-sum hypothetical
“behavior” was included. Specifically, participants were
asked to think about each player in turn, to imagine that
this player hit a single, and then to indicate how they
would respond (as manager) to the hit. Seven response
options were offered and participants were asked to
check all that would apply to their likely reaction to a
player’s single: (a) say “nice job!” to the player, (b) jump
up and down excitedly, (c) pat the player on the back,
(d) tell others how pleased you are with the player, (e)
nothing in particular, (f) cheer loudly, and (g) smile at
the player. These responses are not clearly ordinal but
they do distinguish between a nonresponse (nothing in
particular), a mild response (smile at the player), and
more animated, positive responses. The addition of the
subjective judgments and non-zero-sum behavioral mea-
sure to Study 2 allows us to (a) directly test the signature
shifting standards judgment prediction (greater evi-
dence of stereotyping on objective than subjective
response scales), (b) examine whether non-zero-sum
behaviors favor female as opposed to male players, and
(c) assess our prediction that objective judgments better
predict zero-sum behaviors and subjective judgments
better predict non-zero-sum behaviors.
A final change in Study 2 was a manipulation of the
order in which judgments were made. In one condition,
subjective batting and fielding judgments preceded
objective judgments, and the zero-sum behaviors pre-
ceded the team selection and assignment measures. In
the other condition, objective judgments preceded sub-
jective judgments, and team selections and assignments
preceded the non-zero-sum behavioral measure. As will
be seen below, this order manipulation had no effects on
any of the measures.
At the end of both studies, participants also com-
pleted a background questionnaire that included items
assessing their knowledge of and experience in playing
softball/baseball, their own likely batting average and
fielding percentages were they to play on a co-ed team,
and their judgment of the relative softball skills of col-
lege-age men versus college-age women. As might be
expected, there were a number of sex differences on
these background factors. In both studies, men
described themselves as more knowledgeable about
baseball/softball than women, as playing baseball/soft-
ball more frequently than women, as likely to have a
higher batting average than women, and as likely to have
a lower fielding error percentage than women. Men
were also more likely than women to believe that men
have better softball skills than women. However, men
were no more likely than women to have ever played soft-
ball before, and none of the participants was a college
softball/baseball player.2
Results
ZERO-SUM BEHAVIORAL CHOICES
Team selections. Participants chose 13 out of 18 possible
players to be on their teams. The first panel of Table 1
depicts the number of players chosen of each type (sex by
athletic appearance) within each study. Target Sex × Level
of Athleticism × Participant Sex (× Order in Study 2)
mixed-model ANOVAs on these choices indicated main
effects of both target sex—Study 1: F(1, 94) = 16.64, p <
.0001; Study 2: F(1, 63) = 3.05, p < .09—and level—Study 1:
F(2, 188) = 374.54; Study 2: F(2, 126) = 253.33, ps <
.0001—as well as significant Target Sex × Level interac-
tions—Study 1: F(2, 188) = 13.54; Study 2: F(2, 126) =
16.53, ps < .0001. There were no reliable effects of partici-
pant sex, all Fs < 1. Overall, participants chose more men
(6.75, SD = .74 in Study 1; 6.68, SD = .81 in Study 2) than
women (6.25, SD = .72 in Study 1; 6.32, SD = .81 in Study 2)
to be on their teams, but the favoring of men was only
reliable in the case of the moderately athletic-appearing
targets, Study 1: t(96) = 6.92; Study 2: t(66) = 8.87, ps <
.0001.
 Biernat, Vescio / STANDARDS AND INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR 71

TABLE 1: Team Selections, Benching Decisions, Infield Positions, and Top of Batting Order Decisions

Study 1 Study 2
Sex of Player Low Moderate High Low Moderate High

Team selections
Female 1.12 (.69) 2.33a (.70) 2.80 (.45) 1.31 (.97) 2.13a (.69) 2.88 (.33)
Male 1.07 (.61) 2.88a (.39) 2.80 (.49) 0.99 (.89) 2.94a (.24) 2.75 (.47)
Benching decisions
Female 0.50 (.68) 0.85b (.68) 0.43 (.59) 0.60 (.58) 0.96b (.73) 0.40 (.52)
Male 0.51 (.60) 0.29b (.50) 0.42 (.57) 0.46 (.53) 0.25b (.44) 0.31 (.50)
Number in infield positions
Female 0.21 (.41) 0.38c (.60) 1.15 (.69) 0.22 (.45) 0.27c (.45) 1.10 (.80)
Male 0.16 (.36) 1.19c (.74) 0.90 (.64) 0.06 (.24) 1.37c (.79) 0.97 (.74)
Number in top five of batting order
Female 0.24 (.50) 0.55d (.60) 1.19 (.79) 0.45 (.66) 0.39d (.55) 1.24 (.82)
Male 0.15 (.35) 1.08d (.73) 1.42 (.80) 0.16 (.41) 1.43d (.89) 1.33 (.81)

NOTE: Standard deviations appear in parentheses. Within each study, means with matching superscripts differed at p < .0001.

Benching. A similar pattern appeared in choices of
which 3 of the 13 team players were benched rather than
placed in the starting lineup (second panel of Table 1).
The main effects of target sex—Study 1: F(1, 94) = 13.66;
Study 2: F(1, 63) = 27.73, ps < .0001—indicated that
women were more likely to be benched than men, but
this effect was qualified by reliable Target Sex × Level
interactions—Study 1: F(2, 188) = 10.10; Study 2: F(2,
126) = 10.43, ps < .0001. As indicated in the table, the ten-
dency to bench female players was only reliable among
the moderately athletic targets, t(96) = 5.93 in Study 1;
t(66) = 6.23 in Study 2, ps < .0001. In general, not only
were moderately athletic women less frequently selected
as team members than men, but even given their lower
representation, they were the most likely to be among
the three benched players. Indeed, in analyses of bench-
ing likelihood corrected for the number of players of a
given sex placed on the team, the main effect of sex
remained reliable in each study—Study 1: F(1, 94) =
4.14, p < .05, male M = .18, SD = .10; female M = .28, SD =
.11; Study 2: F(1, 63) = 16.73, p < .0001, male M = .15, SD =
.09; female M = .31, SD = .11. Participant sex had no
effects on the benching selections (all ps > .36).
Field positions and batting order. To summarize the field
position data, we computed the number of men versus
women assigned to infield positions (the more presti-
gious assignments; see third panel of Table 1). In each
study, the same ANOVA approach described above
revealed main effects of target sex—Study 1: F(1, 94) =
13.54; Study 2: F(1, 63) = 13.57—and athleticism level—
Study 1: F(2, 188) = 85.70; Study 2: F(2, 126) = 69.96—
and significant Sex × Level interactions—Study 1: F(2,
188) = 34.63; Study 2: F(2, 126) = 29.40, ps < .0001.
Women, and particularly moderately athletic women,
were less likely to be selected for infield positions relative
to men. In analyses of fielding position assignment
corrected for number of players of a given sex on the
team, women (MStudy1 = .28, SD = .12; MStudy2 = .25, SD =
.13) continued to be less frequently assigned to infield
positions than men (MStudy1 = .33, SD = .11; MStudy2 = .36,
SD = .12), Study 1: F(1, 94) = 7.09; Study 2: F(1, 63) = 4.77,
ps < .05. Thus, even correcting for their lesser presence
on the team, women had less chance of being chosen for
infield positions.3
As for batting order, the most prestigious top posi-
tions also were assigned on the basis of target sex. Men
were more likely than women to be assigned to the first,
third, and fourth (clean-up) positions, but women were
slightly more likely than men to bat second. To summa-
rize these data we computed the number of men versus
women assigned to the top half (top five) of the batting
lineup. These means appear in the fourth panel of Ta-
ble 1. As was the case for the other zero-sum choices,
ANOVAs indicated main effects of target sex—Study 1:
F(1, 94) = 20.29; Study 2: F(1, 63) = 10.61—and level of
athleticism—Study 1: F(2, 188) = 118.02; Study 2: F(2,
126) = 53.40—as well as reliable Target Sex × Level
interactions—Study 1: F(2, 188) = 9.77; Study 2: F(2,
126) = 22.77, ps < .0001. Once again, the tendency for
men to bat sooner than women was only reliable in the
case of moderately athletic targets. Analyses of batting
order assignments correcting for the number of players
of each sex on participants’ teams indicated that women
(MStudy1 = .32, SD = .15; MStudy2 = .33, SD = .14) were signifi-
cantly less likely to be placed in the top of the batting
order (positions one to five) than men (MStudy1 = .39, SD =
.15; MStudy2 = .44, SD = .13); Study 1: F(1, 94) = 11.37;
Study 2: F(1, 63) = 7.79, ps < .0001.
In sum, these findings indicate a clear zero-sum
behavioral preference for male as opposed to female
softball players: Despite equivalent subjective assess-
ments of athleticism in the pretest, men were more likely
to be chosen for the team, less likely to be benched, more
72 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
likely to be assigned to play infield positions, and more
likely to bat in the top of the batting order than women.
The poor quality assignments for women were notable
even after correcting for the relative lack of women play-
ers on the team.
OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE BATTING
AND FIELDING JUDGMENTS
In Study 1, participants made only “objective” judg-
ments of the targets by estimating seasonal batting aver-
ages and fielding error rates. The mean batting average
estimates were submitted to a Target Sex × Athleticism
Level × Participant Sex ANOVA. As in the earlier analy-
ses, the target sex, F(1, 92) = 14.54, level, F(2, 184) =
98.38, and Target Sex × Level interaction, F(2, 184) =
29.03, ps < .0001, were again significant. At each level of
athleticism, men were judged to have higher batting
averages than women, and these differences were reli-
able for both moderate (Mmale = .454, SD = .186; Mfemale =
.287, SD = .145) and highly athletic targets (Mmale = .461,
SD = .188; Mfemale = .365, SD = .165; ts(96) = 12.02 and 6.77,
respectively, ps < .0001. These data provide good,
although indirect, evidence of the shifting standards
effect—male and female targets were judged equiva-
lently in pretested subjective athleticism, but estimates
of their batting averages nonetheless differed. In addi-
tion, a main effect of participant sex emerged in these
judgments, F(1, 92) = 14.54, p < .0001, with women (M =
.390, SD = .155) estimating higher batting averages over-
all than men (M = .285, SD = .078).
Study 1 fielding error rates were analyzed in a compa-
rable ANOVA. Reliable main effects and the two-way
interaction were again documented: target sex: F(1, 92) =
40.18; level: F(2, 184) = 95.92; and Target Sex × Level:
F(2, 184) = 20.69, ps < .0001. Male fielders were reliably
viewed as less error prone than female players, signifi-
cantly so at both the moderate (Mmale = 13.1%, SD = 11.1;
Mfemale = 27.3%, SD = 17.1) and high athletic levels (Mmale =
12.9%, SD = 9.5; Mfemale = 17.7%, SD = 13.0; ts(96) = 9.35
and 4.28, respectively, ps < .0001). Female participants
(M = 27.5%, SD = 12.7) also estimated higher overall
error rates than male participants (M = 16.4%, SD = 8.3),
F(1, 92) = 22.49, p < .0001.
In sum, the objective judgments of targets in Study 1
produced a pattern comparable to that for zero-sum
behaviors: Male players were predicted to have better
seasonal batting averages and to field with fewer errors
than female players. Although this study did not allow
for a direct comparison of subjective and objective target
judgments made by the same participants, the results are
consistent with the shifting standards hypothesis that the
same subjective label (e.g., “moderately athletic”) means
something different when applied to male and female
targets: Female players were perceived as performing
less well, objectively, than comparably labeled male
players.
In Study 2, however, we were able to directly test the
shifting standards hypothesis because participants
judged targets’ batting and fielding ability in both objec-
tive and subjective units. To make the subjective and
objective versions of these judgments comparable, and
to control for individual differences in response scale
use, we used within-subjects standardization. That is,
each judgment (e.g., batting average) was computed as a
deviation from the participant’s mean batting average
estimate across the 18 targets, divided by the standard
deviation for that participant’s batting average estimates.
We submitted the batting estimates (objective, subjec-
tive) to a Participant Sex × Order × Target Sex × Athleti-
cism Level × Scale repeated-measures ANOVA. A num-
ber of effects were significant, including the main effect
of target sex, F(1, 63) = 38.30; the main effect of athleti-
cism level, F(2, 126) = 292.09; and the Sex × Level inter-
action, F(2, 126) = 92.82, ps < .0001. As in Study 1, the ten-
dency for men to be judged better batters than women
was reliable for both the moderate (Mmale = .72, SD = .37;
Mfemale = 0.41, SD = .35) and highly athletic targets (Mmale =
.62, SD = .42; Mfemale = .44, SD = .38), ts(66) = 15.73 and
2.25, respectively, ps < .05. Of most theoretical interest,
however, was the predicted Target Sex × Response Scale
interaction, F(1, 63) = 22.91, p < .0001, which was not
moderated by any higher order interactions. Men were
particularly likely to be judged better batters than wo-
men on the objective response scale (Ms = .24 and –.24,
SDs = .24), relative to the subjective response scale (Ms =
.12 and –.12, SDs = .25). In unadjusted estimates, objec-
tive (batting average) estimates were .363 and .314 for
men and women, respectively, and comparable subjec-
tive estimates were 4.48 and 4.12.
A similar analysis was conducted on Study 2 judg-
ments of fielding (error rates were reverse scored such
that positive numbers indicate better play). This analysis
also revealed significant effects of target sex: F(1, 63) =
63.63; athleticism level: F(2, 126) = 369.24; and their
interaction: F(2, 126) = 57.50, ps < .0001. Overall, men
were judged to field better than women (Mmale = .20,
Mfemale = –.20, SDs = .20), and comparisons within athleti-
cism level indicated that this sex difference was reliable
only among the moderate targets (Mmale = .71, SD = .29;
Mfemale = –.31, SD = .34), t(66) = 16.38, p < .0001. However,
there was no evidence that response scale moderated
these effects, Sex × Scale F < 1. Subject sex and order had
no effects on either the batting or fielding estimates.
NON-ZERO-SUM BEHAVIOR
Only in Study 2 did we include assessments of (hypo-
thetical) non-zero-sum behavior: Participants’ role-
played behavioral responses to a single hit by each
 Biernat, Vescio / STANDARDS AND INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR
TABLE 2: Non-Zero-Sum Behavioral Responses to “Singles” Hit by
Players, Sex × Level Interaction, Study 2
Level of Athleticism
Sex of
Player Low Moderate High
Female 2.21 (1.20) [.97] 2.21a (1.21) [.95c] 2.19b (1.18) [.94d]
Male 2.19 (1.29) [.94] 1.69a (1.16) [.79c] 1.79b (1.14) [.84d]
NOTE: Standard deviations appear in parentheses. Numbers in brack-
ets indicate the proportion of respondents who responded in any way
other than “nothing in particular” to the single. Means with matching
superscripts differ at p < .01.
player. As indicated in the Method section, respondents
checked off as many of the seven listed reactions that
would characterize their response, as manager, to a
player’s hit. Because these reactions were not clearly
ordinal, we simply calculated the number of responses
that were checked, excluding the “nothing in particular”
response (i.e., if this were the only option checked, it was
scored a “0”; any other response was counted toward a
“total reaction” score). These figures were submitted to a
Participant Sex × Order × Target Sex × Athleticism Level
repeated-measures ANOVA. A main effect of participant
sex reflected female managers’ (M = 2.82, SD = 1.00)
greater likelihood of behaviorally responding to a single
than male managers (M = 1.49, SD = .77), F(1, 63) =
37.60, p < .0001. The analysis also revealed main effects
of target sex, F(1, 63) = 23.36, and athleticism level, F(2,
126) = 8.20, as well as their interaction, F(2, 126) = 10.43,
ps < .0001, which is depicted in Table 2. Whereas the
zero-sum behaviors reflected preference for men (men
more likely to be selected for the team, to play infield
positions, to bat in the top of the lineup), this non-zero-
sum index indicated favoritism toward female players,
especially those moderate and high in athleticism. This
table also depicts the proportion of respondents who
indicated any kind of non- zero-sum response to the hit
other than doing “nothing in particular” (i.e., the
seven-item index was reduced to a 0-1 coding system).
These data indicate the same pattern—managers
reacted more favorably to a single hit by a woman than a
man. Interestingly, however, in the case of low-athletic
men (for whom expectations were presumably low), a
single was greeted with as much behavioral fanfare as
that expressed toward all female players.
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
JUDGMENT AND BEHAVIOR
The Study 1 data allowed for a test of only one compo-
nent of Hypothesis 3: Objective judgments will predict
zero-sum behaviors. Consistent with this prediction, the
relative preference for male over female players in team
selection (zero-sum behavior) was significantly corre-
lated with the male-female difference in predicted bat-
73
TABLE 3: Correlations Among Objective and Subjective Judgments,
Zero-Sum and Non-Zero-Sum Behaviors, Study 2
Objective
Team (Zero-Sum) Non-Zero-Sum Batting
Non-zero-sum –.21
Objective batting .51*** [.31**] –.21 [–.01]
Subjective batting .46*** [.19] –.31** [–.24*] .66***
NOTE: All variables reflect the relative difference in male-female judg-
ments/behaviors (e.g., team = number of male players – number of fe-
male players). Numbers in brackets indicate partial correlations, with
estimates on the other judgment scale (subjective or objective)
partialed out.
*p < .06. **p < .05. ***p < .0001.
ting average (r = .49, p < .0001). However, because rele-
vant measures were not included in this study, we could
not test the relative predictive power of subjective and
objective judgments on both zero-sum and non-zero-
sum behaviors.
This was remedied, however, in Study 2. We predicted
that the tendency to estimate that men have higher bat-
ting averages than women should predict team selec-
tions (a zero-sum behavior), whereas the male-female
difference in subjective batting judgments should pre-
dict the non-zero-sum behavior of relatively favorable
reactions to female players’ hits. Table 3 reports the cor-
relations among male-female differences in team selec-
tion, non-zero-sum behavioral responses, objective bat-
ting averages, and subjective batting quality estimates.
For example, the correlation of –.21 between team selec-
tion and non-zero-sum behavior indicates that although
men were preferred on the team over women, men were
responded to less favorably than women when they hit
singles. As can be seen in the table, objective and subjec-
tive batting estimates were positively related (.66): The
tendency to judge men more favorably than women co-
occurred on both scales. Also, both subjective and objec-
tive batting judgments were associated with the team
selection and non-zero-sum responses to hits.
However, the pattern of partial correlations, in which
the effects of the “other” judgment scale were partialed
out of the analyses, generally supported our predictions
(see bracketed entries in Table 3). Although preference
for men on the team was associated with both objective
and subjective batting judgments, the correlation
between objective judgments and team selections
remained significant after controlling for subjective
judgments; the converse was not true (see Column 1 of
Table 3). Similarly, although relatively positive reaction
to male as opposed to female players’ hits was negatively
related to both objective and subjective batting judg-
ments, the partial correlations reflected a stronger effect
of subjective judgments on this behavior.4 In other
74 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
words, the tendency to view men as better batters than
women was associated with less positive behavioral reac-
tions to male relative to female players’ hits. To examine
whether the key partial correlations were reliably differ-
ent, we used Fisher’s r to z transformation and calculated
z using Fisher’s formula. The difference between the cor-
relations of .31 and .19 was not reliable (z = 1.03, ns), but
the difference between the correlations of –.01 and –.24
was significant (z = 1.88, p < .04, one-tailed). In short,
zero-sum behaviors showed only a slight tendency to be
better predicted by objective than subjective judgments,
but non-zero-sum behaviors were reliably better pre-
dicted by subjective than objective judgments.
Discussion
The two studies described here were designed to
extend research on the shifting standards model to
incorporate behavioral responses to members of stereo-
typed groups. In prior work, we have documented that
stereotypes lead perceivers to evaluate members of con-
trasting groups against different standards. This ten-
dency can be seen in the findings that (a) subjective
judgments, which allow for meaning shifts, often mask
stereotyping effects at the same time that objective judg-
ments reveal them and (b) perceivers “translate” subjec-
tive language in accordance with group stereotypes (e.g.,
“good at math” means higher math grades for Asian than
for Black students) (Kobrynowicz & Biernat, 1997).
Consistent with these data, the present studies indi-
cated that male and female targets who were described
as similarly athletic by pretest participants were nonethe-
less judged to have objectively different softball perfor-
mances. Male players (except those who were pretested
to be low in athleticism) were judged to bat and field sig-
nificantly better than female players. In Study 2, a more
direct replication of the typical shifting standards effect
was documented in batting judgments: The tendency to
judge men as better batters than women was stronger on
objective (batting average) than subjective (good-poor
hitter) response scales. That this effect occurred when
scale was manipulated within-subjects adds further cre-
dence to our claim that standard shifts occur readily, per-
haps without awareness (see Biernat, 1995). However, a
similar effect did not emerge for fielding estimates. We
have no solid explanation for the null effect of response
scale on this dimension, although we suspect that
judges’ lack of familiarity in estimating error rates (com-
pared to batting averages) may have contributed to the
lack of differentiation between objective and subjective
measurement.
It is also worth noting that most of the behavioral and
judgmental differentiation between male and female
players was due to the targets labeled “moderately ath-
letic.” This finding is quite consistent with a large body of
literature suggesting that the influence of stereotypes
and other heuristics is strongest when stimuli are ambig-
uous in nature (see Kunda & Thagard, 1996, for a review;
Stapel & Winkielman, 1998). The athletic competence
of moderately athletic targets was presumably rather
unclear and open to construal, whereas the appearance
of the high- and low-athletic targets (the “jocks” and the
“wimps”) left less room for stereotype-guided interpreta-
tion (Darley & Gross, 1983; Kunda & Sherman-Williams,
1993).5
The novel aspect of the present research was our
focus on behavioral responses to male and female tar-
gets. We engaged participants in playing the role of soft-
ball team manager and took them through the process
of decision making that a real team manager would fol-
low. Managers were asked to make zero-sum behavioral
choices: deciding who should be on the team, who
should play which positions, and who should bat. As pre-
dicted, these behaviors indicated a favoring of men: Men
were more likely to be selected for the team, to be
assigned to important infield positions, and to bat in the
early part of the batting order; they were also less likely
than women to be benched. These patterns were particu-
larly true of comparisons between male and female play-
ers of moderate athleticism, and the position effects
remained reliable even after correcting for the a priori
lower likelihood of women being on the team.
However, at the same time that these zero-sum behav-
ioral choices favored male players, Study 2 indicated that
non-zero-sum behavior favored female players. By our defi-
nition, non-zero-sum behaviors include both verbal and
nonverbal activities that are unlimited in availability—
behavior toward one individual is not restricted by
behavior toward others. Admittedly, our indicator of
non-zero-sum behavior was indirect and hypothetical—
managers were asked to indicate how they would
respond if a player hit a single during a game (from
doing nothing, to smiling, to cheering wildly). Nonethe-
less, this behavioral measure produced the predicted
pattern of results: A good hitting performance by a
female player was greeted with more enthusiastic behav-
ior than comparable performance by a male player.
We suggest that this pattern occurs precisely because
of the low standards perceivers hold regarding female
athleticism. A single is better coming from a woman than
a man because it is less expected. The “wow” feeling that
results from a surpassed expectation then translates into
favorable non-zero-sum behavior. The data from both
studies paint a picture in which female athletes receive
fewer of the good limited resources available in a sports
context but receive more praise and pats on the back
when their performance is good. Both patterns,
although apparently contradictory, reflect the operation
 Biernat, Vescio / STANDARDS AND INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR
of gender stereotypes and the corresponding perfor-
mance standards they invoke.
A final question in the present research concerned
the relationship between judgment and behavior. To
date, research on the shifting standards model has
focused on judgment effects, revealing that subjective
and objective response scales often reveal different pat-
terns of evaluation of men and women, or Blacks and
Whites, on stereotyped dimensions. But the implications
of this differential judgment pattern for intergroup
behavior are less clear. Specifically, a logical question
that follows from research on judgment is whether
behavior toward target individuals follows from objec-
tive assessments (which tend to show assimilative stereo-
typing effects) or from subjective assessments (which are
less likely to do so). The key prediction of this research
was that objective judgments would better predict zero-
sum behaviors, whereas subjective judgments would
better predict non-zero-sum behaviors.
This prediction was tested via the correlational analy-
ses reported in Study 2 (see Table 3). Both subjective and
objective assessments of batting performance were cor-
related with the main zero-sum behavior (team selec-
tions) and with the non-zero-sum behavior (verbal and
nonverbal behavioral reactions). However, partial corre-
lations generally supported the predicted pattern of
results: The tendency to choose male as opposed to
female players for the team was more strongly related to
objective than subjective batting judgments (although
not significantly so), and the tendency to react favorably
in verbal and nonverbal behavior was more strongly
related to subjective than objective judgments. That is,
choosing men as opposed to women for the team was
most strongly associated with judging that male players
have better batting averages than female players, and
greater behavioral reaction toward male than female
players’ hits was most strongly associated with judging
women as subjectively better batters than men.
Although these findings were not as strong and strik-
ing as we might like, they do suggest that both subjective
and objective evaluations of members of stereotyped
groups have meaningful, but different, behavioral impli-
cations. Objective judgments, which do not allow for
within-category meaning shifts, are linked to limited
resource zero-sum behaviors; subjective judgments,
which reflect within-category standard shifts, are linked
to the kinds of verbal and nonverbal reactions that are
not typically exhausted in one’s behavioral repertoire.
Other researchers in the domain of prejudice and ste-
reotyping have made distinctions between types of
behavioral response to stereotyped group members. For
example, Dovidio and his colleagues have distinguished
between spontaneous and deliberative behaviors
(Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996; Dovidio,
75
Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997), sug-
gesting that the former are better predicted by implicit
measures of outgroup attitudes and the latter by more
direct self-report measures (see also Dovidio & Fazio,
1992; Fazio, 1990; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams,
1995).
This spontaneous/deliberative distinction seems to map
fairly well onto our zero-sum/non-zero-sum distinction.
Spontaneous behaviors are similar to our non-zero-sum
behaviors—they include the kinds of “uncontrollable”
nonverbal behaviors that may occur during intergroup
interaction. And most zero-sum behaviors are likely to be
deliberative as well; any choice between alternatives or
allocation of resources is likely to involve conscious
deliberation. However, one can imagine a non-zero-sum
behavior that involves deliberation (e.g., Should I smile
at this person or not? Should I laugh at this joke?) or a
zero-sum behavior that does not (e.g., I happen to spend
more of my available time helping one person rather
than another). The spontaneous/deliberative distinc-
tion may be more appropriate for considering the types
of issues addressed by Dovidio and Fazio and col-
leagues—how self-report versus less reactive measures of
attitudes predict self-report (deliberative) versus less
reactive (more implicit and spontaneous) measures of
behavior. Indeed, building on the Skinnerian distinction
between “operant” and “respondent” behaviors (see
Skinner, 1938), motivation researchers have long argued
that Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) measures of
motives are better predictors of operant or spontaneous
behaviors, whereas self-report measures of values better
predict respondent behaviors (“what people cognitively
decide should be done”) (Biernat, 1989, p. 73; see
McClelland, 1980, 1985; McClelland, Koestner, &
Weinberger, 1989).
For our purposes, however, the zero-sum/non-zero-
sum distinction better captures the fact that in a given sit-
uation, some behaviors are of limited and some of unlim-
ited “supply.” This distinction is important in that lim-
ited supply (zero-sum) behaviors require consideration
across a number of potential targets, whereas unlimited
supply (non-zero-sum) behaviors do not. As the shifting
standards model suggests, it is when one is making cross-
target comparisons that stereotypic between-group dif-
ferences are likely to be noted and revealed. When
behavior toward one target is independent of behavior
toward another, however, it may follow from intra- rather
than intergroup conceptions of targets (“Coming from a
female player, a single makes me cheer!”). This is not to
deny that non-zero-sum behaviors such as nonverbal
interaction style may reveal stereotypic biases—indeed,
a highly cited study on interracial interactions docu-
ments the less favorable nonverbal behaviors that tend to
be directed toward Blacks, with negative effect (Word,
76 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). However, we suggest that just as
subjective judgment scales tend to mask stereotyping
effects, non-zero-sum behaviors may mask the full extent
of perceivers’ stereotypic bias because they allow for
within- rather than across-group comparison and
consideration.
More generally, we suggest that both subjective and
objective judgment, and both zero-sum and non-zero-
sum behavior, have important implications for individ-
ual targets. Our research focused on the game of soft-
ball, where we found that female players were evaluated
against lower standards than male players, such that they
were less likely to receive valuable resource allocation
but more likely to receive positive nonverbal feedback
for good performance. This is surely likely to be a confus-
ing situation for both male and female athletes, and the
playing field may only be leveled after a female athlete
has shown repeated and extensive high competence on
the diamond (such that good performance is no longer
unexpected). Further research is needed to test whether
the effects reported here are equally strong when actual
rather than hypothetical behavior is considered and to
examine the generalizability and boundary conditions
of this pattern of findings. For example, in the work-
place, women and Blacks may face a situation in which
scarce resources and choice assignments are not forth-
coming but nonverbal feedback may be overly favorable
or unrealistic (Harber, 1998; Massey, Scott, & Dorn-
busch, 1975; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987; Steele, 1992).
How both perceivers and targets negotiate the some-
times conflicting judgments and behaviors that stereo-
types evoke remains an important research question.
NOTES
1. Study 1 also included a manipulation in which half of the partici-
pants were told “because this is a co-ed team, your team must have
roughly equal numbers of male and female players” and half were not.
This manipulation had no effects on any of the decisions or judgments
and therefore will not be discussed further. In retrospect, we believe
this one-sentence manipulation was too subtle and that by repeatedly
framing the task in terms of co-ed softball, all participants felt some
necessity of being relatively egalitarian in their choices.
2. In addition to the analyses reported below, we examined whether
any of these measured variables (knowledge, own experience, etc.)
moderated the results. Other than a general tendency for softball
“experts” to estimate lower fielding error rates and lower batting aver-
ages overall than nonexperts, and for those who judged themselves as
worse players to estimate higher error rates than those who judged
themselves as good players, there was no evidence in either study of
moderation of the effects reported in the text. Participant sex effects
emerged only rarely, as described in the Results section.
3. These effects were even stronger when we considered only the
most prestigious infield positions—pitcher, first base, shortstop, third
base—or when we considered assignment to the more prestigious left
half of the field—pitcher, shortstop, third base, left and left center
field—relative to the right.
4. Of course, results from a multiple regression approach also sup-
port this pattern—when team choice was regressed on both objective
and subjective judgments, Bs = .37 (p < .05) and .21 (ns), respectively;
when non-zero-sum behaviors were regressed on both objective and
subjective judgments, Bs = – .01 (ns) and –.31 (p = .05), respectively.
5. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that batting average estimates,
fielding error rates, and non-zero-sum behavioral reactions also dif-
fered for the highly athletic men versus women. Perhaps this reflects
perceivers’ expectations that even the best women players will perform
less competently on the field than the best men players (whereas the
male and female “wimps” are equally bad) and that because of low
expectations, a single is to be greeted with some flourish. In terms of
zero-sum behavior, however, participants appeared willing to treat the
highly athletic women and men with equal favor. This may reflect a nor-
mative or motivational concern that is relevant only when it comes to
zero-sum choices: A manager of a co-ed team is obligated to place some
women on the team, in infield positions, and high in the batting order,
and for these selections, the most athletic females are chosen. But at
the same time, the manager may still judge those “competent” female
players as less good than their male counterparts.
REFERENCES
Bettencourt, B. A., Dill, K. E., Greathouse, S. A., Charlton, K., &
Mulholland, A. (1997). Evaluations of ingroup and outgroup
members: The role of category-based expectancy violation. Jour-
nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 244-275.
Biernat, M. (1989). Achievement motives and values: Different con-
structs with different effects. Journal of Personality, 57, 69-95.
Biernat, M. (1995). The shifting standards model: Implications of ste-
reotype accuracy for social judgment. In Y. T. Lee, L. J. Jussim, &
C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group
differences (pp. 87-114). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Biernat, M., Crandall, C. S., Young, L. V., Kobrynowicz, D., & Halpin, S. M.
(1998). All that you can be: Stereotyping of self and others in a mil-
itary context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 301-
317.
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based stan-
dards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher abil-
ity standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 544-557.
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-
based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5-20.
Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Simultaneous
assimilation and contrast effects in judgments of self and other.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 254-269.
Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Nelson, T. E. (1991). Stereotypes and stan-
dards of judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
485-499.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Manis, M. (1998). Judging and behaving
toward members of stereotyped groups: A shifting standards per-
spective. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Inter-
group cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 151-175). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brewer, M. B., (1988). A dual process model of impression formation.
In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1,
pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in
labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33.
Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J. C., Johnson, B. T., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996).
Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination: Another look. In
C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and ste-
reotyping (pp. 276-319). New York: Guilford.
Dovidio, J. F., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). New technologies for the direct
and indirect assessment of attitudes. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions
about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 204-
237). New York: Russell Sage.
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A.
(1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled
processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510-540.
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behav-
ior: The MODE Model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-
109). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
 Biernat, Vescio / STANDARDS AND INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR
Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995).
Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of
racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In
D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Ed.), The handbook of social
psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 357-411). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression for-
mation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influ-
ences of information and motivation on attention and interpreta-
tion. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press.
Foschi, M. (1992). Gender and double standards for competence. In
C. L. Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and inequality (pp. 181-
207). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gupta, N., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Beehr, T. A. (1983). Employee gender,
gender similarity, and supervisor-subordinate cross-evaluations.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 174-184.
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer &
T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 1-68).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harber, K. D. (1998). Feedback to minorities: Evidence of a positive
bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 622-628.
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gen-
der, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jussim, L., Coleman, L. M., & Lerch, L. (1987). The nature of stereo-
types: A comparison and integration of three theories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 536-546.
Kobrynowicz, D., & Biernat, M. (1997). Decoding subjective evalua-
tions: How stereotypes provide shifting standards. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 33, 579-601.
Kunda, Z., & Sherman-Williams, B. (1993). Stereotypes and the
construal of individuating information. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 19, 90-99.
Kunda, Z., & Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereo-
types, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction the-
ory. Psychological Review, 103, 284-308.
Manis, M., Nelson, T. E., & Shedler, J. (1988). Stereotypes and social
judgment: Extremity, assimilation, and contrast. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 55, 28-36.
Massey, G., Scott, V., & Dornbusch, S. (1975, November). Racism with-
out racists: Institutional racism in urban schools. The Black Scholar,
pp. 10-19.
77
McClelland, D. C. (1980). Motive dispositions: The merits of operant
and respondent measures. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personal-
ity and social psychology (pp. 10-41). London: Sage Ltd.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine
what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-823.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-
attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690-
702.
Pettigrew, T., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context
for Black American inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41-78.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Stangor, C., & Lange, J. E. (1994). Mental representations of social
groups: Advances in understanding stereotypes and stereotyping.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
26, pp. 357-416). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (1998). When stereotype activation
results in (counter)stereotypical judgments: Priming stereotype-
relevant traits and exemplars. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 34, 136-163.
Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., & van der Pligt, J. (1997). Categories of cat-
egory accessibility: The impact of trait concept versus exemplar
priming on person judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 33, 47-76.
Stapel, D. A., & Winkielman, P. (1998). Assimilation and contrast as a
function of context-target similarity, distinctness, and dimen-
sional relevance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 634-
646.
Steele, C. (1992, April). Race and the schooling of Black Americans.
Atlantic Monthly, pp. 68-78.
von Hippel, W., Sekaquaptewa, D., & Vargas, P. (1995). On the role of
encoding processes in stereotype maintenance. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 177-
254). New York: Academic Press.
Weitz, S. (1972). Attitude, voice, and behavior: A repressed affect
model of interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24, 14-21.
Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal media-
tion of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109-120.
Received July 5, 2000
Revision accepted February 17, 2001