Academy of Management Journal

1977, Vol. 20, No. 1, 89-100

Organizational and Personal

Correlates of Attitudes Toward
Women as Managers^
JAMES R. TERBORG
LAWRENCE H. PETERS
DANIEL R. ILGEN
Purdue University
FRANK SMITH
Roosevelt University

This study discusses the validation of a scale designed

to measure attitudes toward women as managers using
a cross-section sample of 180 male and 100 female em-
ployees. The relationship of personal data (e.g., age, sex)
and organizational data (e.g., salary, months since last
promotion) to stereotypes also is examined.

Social and employment trends indicate that increasing numbers of wom-

en are rejecting traditional views of appropriate sex-role behavior and are
seeking full-time employment in previously masculine dominated occupa-
tions. However, in positions of authority and responsibility within the or-
ganization, the integration of women has achieved limited success. Dif-
ferential treatment of women has been reported in selection (Dipboye,
Fromkin & Wiback, 1975; Fidell, 1970; Shaw, 1972), monetary remunera-
tion (Levitin, Quinn & Staines, 1971; Terborg & llgen, 1975; U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, 1971), promotion policies (Day & Stogdill, 1972; Rosen
& Jerdee, 1974a), employee utilization (Kootz, 1970; Rosen & Jerdee,
1974b), and employee development (Rosen & Jerdee, 1974a).

lames R. Terborg is Assistant Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Uni-

versity of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
Lawrence H. Peters is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior, Department of
Management and Administrative Science, University of Texas, Dallas, Texas.
Daniel R. llgen is Assistant Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychological
Sciences, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana.
Frank Smith is Lecturer of Organizational Behavior, School of Business Administration,
Roosevelt University, Chicago, Illinois.
1 This research was conducted when the first two authors were at Purdue University and
was partially supported by a grant from the Purdue Research Foundation (No. 7340-56-
13645) to Daniel R. llgen and James R. Terborg.

89
90 Academy of Management Journal March

One explanation for this differential treatment of women stems from

the assumption that women lack the aggressiveness, leadership ability, etc.,
often required of management positions. Research exists which supports
this contention (Bond & Vinacke, 1961; Maier, 1970; Megargee, 1969).
However, a considerable body of research also exists which indicates that
women do possess the qualifications required of management level posi-
tions. Women have been reported as being similar to men in leadership be-
havior (Day & Stogdill, 1972; Hansen, 1974), problem solving (Matthews,
1972), cooperation and competition (Lirtzman & Wahba, 1972), and
potential managerial capability (Bass, Krusell & Alexander, 1971). Given
these latter results, it appears untenable to conclude that differential treat-
ment of women vis-a-vis management positions is justified using behavioral
criteria.
A more probable explanation for the differential treatment of women
may be found in the existence of pervasive and persistent sex-role stereo-
types. In general, women are perceived as being dependent, passive, and
subjective, and as lacking such attributes as competitiveness, ambition,
and leadership ability (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson & Rosen-
krantz, 1972). Accordingly, in the business context, women are perceived
as being too emotional and otherwise unfit for managerial positions (Bow-
man, Worthy & Greyson, 1965; Orth & Jacobs, 1971; Schein, 1973).
Hypothesizing that resistance tov/ard women who desire business careers
may stem partially from sex-role stereotypes, psychological research re-
cently has begun to examine the presumed effects of such stereotypes on
women in business. However, the existence of sex-role stereotypes and
more importantly their role in affecting behavior has been inferred pri-
marily from post hoc explanations (Rosen & Jerdee, 1974a; Shaw, 1972).
For example, Rosen and Jerdee (1974a) attributed the experimental find-
ing that males would be promoted more rapidly than equally qualified
females to the infiuence of sex-role stereotypes. However, in actuality, no
independent measure of stereotypes was ever taken.
Although the present authors agree with the plausibility of Rosen and
Jerdee's interpretations, prior measurement of subjects' attitudes toward
women in business would strengthen such arguments.^ Further, in order
to better understand the processes underlying occupational sex discrimina-
tion, it is necessary to identify those conditions for which sex-role stereo-
types do influence behavior and those conditions for which such stereotypes
do not infiuence behavior. For example, Terborg and Ilgen (1975) found
that scores on the Women as Managers Scale—a measure of stereotypes
developed by Peters, Terborg, and Taynor (1974)—were related to sub-
sequent behavior only in situations in which little information about the
female was provided. Similarly, Rosen and Jerdee (1974c) reported that

2 For a more coniplete discussion of the relationship between sex-role stereotypes and
occupational discrimination, see Ilgen and Terborg (1975), Rosen and Jerdee (1975), and
Terborg and Ilgen (1975).
1977 Terborg, Peters, Ilgen and Smith 91

Stereotypes appear to have little impact on decisions where specific rules

are operative. This finding is consistent with previous research which sug-
gests that stereotypes are most salient in situations characterized by an
absence of adequate information on which to judge the individual(s) in
question (Stein, Hardyck & Smith, 1965). Therefore, while differential
treatment of women in masculine positions appears to be influenced by
sex-role stereotypes, research relating an independent measure of stereo-
types to subsequent behavior is needed.
A search through the literature for an instrument capable of assessing
attitudes toward women as managers proved disappointing. A 5 5-item
Attitudes Toward Women Scale developed by Spence and Helmreich
(1972) contained only a few items which dealt with attitudes toward work-
ing women. In addition, their items appeared too general to be used ex-
clusively for assessing stereotypes about women in management positions.
A second questionnaire designed specifically to measure attitudes about
women managers was reported by Bass et al. (1971). In this instance, how-
ever, the construction and development of the questionnaire detracted from
the confidence which may be placed in the use of such a measuring instru-
ment. Some of the items were poorly worded (e.g., double-barreled inter-
pretations), and all of the item stems were worded in an unfavorable direc-
tion toward women as managers. This violates existing guidelines for
attitude scale construction (Edwards, 1957; Likert, 1932). Finally, Schein
(1973) developed an index of adjectives and descriptive terms which
demonstrated the existence of sex-role stereotypes with respect to req-
uisite management characteristics. In this instance, the scale was spe-
cifically constructed to determine if the middle management position re-
quired personal attributes (traits) often thought to be more characteristic
of men than of women. It did not, in the authors' opinion, measure the full
range of attitudes toward women as managers.
Therefore, given the apparent influence of stereotypes on subsequent
discriminatory behavior toward women, and given the lack of a suitable
scale to measure these stereotypes, a clear need existed for an instrument
capable of assessing attitudes toward women as managers. The following
briefly describes the development of such a questionnaire.

Women as Managers Scale

The Women as Managers Scale (WAMS) was designed to identify and
measure stereotypic attitudes toward women as managers (for a complete
discussion of the development of the scale, see Peters et al., 1974). The
goal was to develop a scale which would be expansive enough to incorporate
many managerial situations and yet be psychologically meaningful. A total
of 55 items were written to include (1) general descriptive traits/behaviors
of managers (e.g., leadership) and (2) female-specific stereotypic traits/
behaviors thought to represent barriers to the successful integration of
women into managerial positions (e.g., child-rearing responsibilities). All
92 Academy of Management Journat March

items were written following procedures for the construction of attitude scale
items (Edwards, 1957; Likert, 1932). Each item consisted of a declarative
statement for which there were seven response alternatives ranging from
"strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The development sample consisted
of 541 advanced undergraduate students from four colleges and universi-
ties located in the South and Midwest. In total, 345 males and 196 females
responded voluntarily to the attitude questionnaire. Based on both item
analysis and a principal components analysis, the initial pool of 55 items
was reduced to a 21-item scale with three interpreted components. The
split-half (odd-even) reliability of the 21-item scale was .91 (corrected
for the length of the scale). The final questionnaire consisted of 11 items
worded to favorably described women as managers and 10 items worded
unfavorably.
Finally, additional research with the scale, since its initial development,
suggested that the computation of composite factor scores for each of the
three components added little beyond consideration of the summated
score to all 21 items (Terborg, Peters & llgen, 1974). Therefore, sub-
sequent use of the scale considers responses to the entire scale as a single
measure of attitudes toward women as managers. Also, using an inde-
pendent sample of 60 advanced undergraduate and graduate students,
half of which were enrolled in an evening course and were employed full-
time, responses to the WAMS were uncorrelated ( r = — .13,p <.1O, n =
60) with responses to the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale
(Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). The final version of the scale, instructions for
administration, and scoring key are presented in Table 1.
The purpose of the present study was to (1) further investigate the
validity of the WAMS using a cross sectional sample of full-time employees
and (2) examine the relationship of personal data (age, sex, etc.) and
organizational data (salary, months since last promotion, etc.) to attitudes
toward women as managers.

Validation Procedure
In order to investigate the validity of the WAMS, data were collected
to test the following validity predictions. First, based on the findings of
Spence and Helmreich (1972) which showed that female college students
and their mothers possessed more liberal attitudes toward the role of
women in society than male college students and their fathers respectively,
it was predicted that females would have more favorable attitudes toward
women as managers than would males. Second, it was predicted that
respondents of each sex whose mothers were employed outside the home
when the respondents were children and/or adolescents would have more
favorable attitudes toward women as managers than respondents whose
mothers were not employed. This prediction stems from the work of Vogel
et al. (1970). They reported results which supported the hypothesis that
children growing up in a family with a working mother would be less likely
1977 Terborg, Peters, Itgen and Smith 93

TABLE 1
The Women as Managers Scale (WAMS)

Instructions Rating Scate

The following items are an atterript to assess the atti- 1= Strongly Disagree
tudes people have about women in business. The best 2= Disagree
answer to each statement is your personat opinion. 3= Slightly Disagree
The statements cover many different and opposing 4= Neither Disagree nor Agree
points of view; you may find yourself agreeing strongly 5= Slightly Agree
with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strong- 6= Agree
ly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others. 7= Strongly Agree
Whether you agree or disagree with any statement;
you can be sure that many people feel the same way
you do.
Using the numbers from 1 to 7 on the rating scale to the right, mark your personal opinion
about each statement in the blank that immediately precedes it. Remember, give your personat
opinion according to how much you agree or disagree with each item. Please respond to all
21 items. Thank you.
1." It is less desirable for women than men to have a job that requires responsibility.
2. Women have the objectivity required to evaluate business situations properly.
3. Challenging work is more important to men than it is to women.
_____ 4. Men and women should be given equal opportunity for participation in man-
agement training programs.
5. Women have the capability to acquire the necessary skills to be successful man-
agers.
6. On the average, women managers are less capable of contributing to an organiza-
tion's overall goals than are men.
7. It is not acceptable for women to assume leadership roles as often as men.
8. The business community should someday accept women in key managerial
positions.
9. Society should regard work by female managers as valuable as work by male
managers.
10. It is acceptable for women to compete with men for top executive positions.
lL The possibility of pregnancy does not make women less desirable employees
than men.
12. Women would no more allow their emotions to infiuence their managerial be-
havior than would men.
13. Problems associated with menstruation should not make women less desirable
than men as employees.
14. To be a successful executive, a woman does not have to sacrifice some of her
femininity.
15. On the average, a woman who stays at home all the time with her children is a
better mother than a woman who works outside the home at least half time.
16. Women are less capable of learning mathematical and mechanical skills than are
men.
17. Women are not ambitious enough to be successful in the business world.
18. Women cannot be assertive in business situations that demand it.
19. Women possess the self confidence required of a good leader.
20. Women are not competitive enough to be successful in the business world.
21. Women cannot be aggressive in business situations that demand it.
"Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21 should be reverse scored so that a high scale
score is associated with a favorable attitude toward women as managers.

to develop differentiated sex-role stereotypes concerning appropriate male/

female behavior than would children growing up in a family with a mother
who was a full-time housewife.
Third, for respondents of each sex, it was predicted that there would be a
positive relationship between attitudes toward the women's rights movement
and attitudes toward women as managers. This was based on' earlier work
 94 Academy of Management Journal March

with the WAMS which indicated that such a relationship did seem to exist
(Peters et al., 1974). Finally, for female respondents only, it was predicted
that there would be a positive relationship between degree of career com-
mitment and favorability of attitudes toward women as managers. This
prediction was based on the results discussed by Manhardt (1972) which
suggested that career commitment moderates the job orientation of women,
with career committed women responding similarly to men in terms of
desired job characteristics. Therefore, the validation procedure consisted
of examining the relationship of the attitude score with the variables of
(1) sex, (2) work history of the respondent's mother, (3) views toward
the women's rights movement, and (4) degree of career commitment.

METHOD
Subjects
The respondents were 180 male and 100 female full-time employees of
an international distributing company. Table 2 provides descriptive statis-
tics for each sex with respect to age, education, pay classification, salary and
total years ofjvorking experience._Specifically, females were slightly older
than males (Xfemnics = 37.3 yrs; Xmmes = 36.5 yrs), had less total work
experience (Xtemmes = 15.3 yrs; Xmnie» = 16.8 yrs), and lower salaries
(Xfemaies = $11,354; 5Cmaies = $16,323). Also, visual inspection of Table
2 indicates that females tend to be hourly rather than salaried employees
whereas males were classified approximately equally in both, and females
tend to have less formal education than males. In all, the sample encom-
passed a wide range of individual characteristics and appeared to ade-
quately represent the working population.

Measurement of Variables
Career commitment was measured by summing responses to three ques-
tions which indicated the respondent's desire for (1) a career in business,
(2) advancement, and (3) responsibility (each question had three re-
sponse alternatives: 1 = very true, 2 = somewhat true, 3 = not true at all).
The items were scored so that a low score was associated with a high degree
of career commitment. To assess the internal consistency of the three items,
for each sex the coefficient alpha was computed. Within rounding error, the
value was .57 for both males and females. Therefore, given a three-item scale
with only three response alternatives per item, the scale was judged as
having acceptable internal consistency. Work history of the respondent's
mother was measured by a yes or no answer to the question: "Was your
mother employed 20 hours per week or more during your childhood and/
or adolescence?" Finally, attitude toward the women's rights movement
was a self-report measure with five response categories (1 = very con-
servative; 5 = very liberal).
1977 Terborg, Peters, Itgen and Smith 95

TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics for the Sample

Mates Femates
Descriptive Items (n = 180) (n = 100)
Age »
Under 21 2.8 6.0
22-27 20.6 22.0
28-33 19.4 14.0
34-39 20.6 10.0
40-45 13.3 20.0
46-51 13.9 15.0
52 or older 9.4 13.0
Education •> (highest level)
Grade school 1.1 4.0
High school 43.3 69.0
Some college 30.0 22.0
College degree 22.8 4.0
Master's degree or above 2.8 1.0
Pay Ctassification »
Hourly 49.3 80.0
Salaried 50.7 20.0
Satary (dollars)
25 percentile 11,450 8,340
50 percentile 13,300 10,450
75 percentile 18,300 13,450
Wortc Experience (years)
25 percentile 9.5 7.3
50 percentile 16.8 11.0
75 percentile 25.0 22.3
" Entries are in percentages.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The items in the WAMS were scored so that a high score was associated
with a favorable attitude toward women as managers. The split-half (odd-
even) reliability corrected for scale length was computed to be /• = .92
(n = 280).
Using a one-way ANOVA with sex as the independent variable, females
expressed significantly more favorable attitudes toward women as man-
agers than did males (Xfemaies = 119.38; Xmoies = 102.11; F = 54.49,
df = 1, 278, p < .001). For the independent variables of the work his-
tory of the respondent's mother, separate ANOVA's were conducted for
each sex. For males, those whose mothers had worked (n — 86) tended
to express more favorable attitudes than those whose mothers had not
worked (n = 93). However, this difference only approached traditional
levels of statistical significance (Xmouic- wo^ed = 104.85; Xmother did not work =
99.73; F = 2.82; df = 1, 117, p < .10). For females, the opposite results
were obtained. Females whose mothers worked (n = 46) tended to ex-
press more unfavorable attitudes than those whose mothers had not worked
(n = 53). As with the males, these results approached significance
96 Academy of Management Journat March

(Xmother worked ^= 1 1 6 . 3 7 ; Xmother did not work ^ 1 2 2 . 1 5 ; F =^ 3 . 6 3 , df ^= 1, 9 7 ,

Views toward the women's rights movement were positively correlated

with attitudes toward women as managers for both males (r = .40, n = 178,
p < .01) and females (r = .19, n = 96, p < .05, one-tailed test). Thus,
respondents with liberal views toward women's rights also tended to express
more favorable attitudes toward women as managers. Finally, the correla-
tion between career commitment and attitudes toward women as managers
was computed only for females. The computed correlation was r = —.26,
(n = 100, p < .01), indicating that women who are career committed also
tended to have more favorable attitudes toward women as managers. In
summary, four of the six predictions received support at the .05 level or
better, and one prediction tended to be supported (p < .10). The only
reversal in predictions occurred for females with respect to the relationship
between work history of the respondent's mother and attitudes toward
women as managers. In total, these results are supportive of the validity
of the scale. Thus, further research with the WAMS as an index of stereo-
types seemed justified.

Attitudes Regressed on Personal and Organizational Data

Based on the above findings, the next logical step in the validation
investigation, given the available sample, was to determine if personal data
and organizational data are related to such attitudes. At the present time,
little is known about the correlation of such variables as education, salary,
interaction with women, etc., with attitudes towards wo'men as managers.

METHOD
Procedure
For personal data, attitudes toward women as managers were regressed
on the variables of (1) sex, (2) age, (3) education, and (4) marital status.
For organizational data, attitude scores were regressed on the variables
of (1) salary, (2) months since last promotion, (3) hourly/salary pay
classification, (4) total months with the organization, and (5) level of
interaction with women (subordinates, peers, superiors). With the organ-
izational data, separate regressions were computed for each sex.

Sample
From the original sample of 180 males and 100 females, 120 males and
67 females were randomly selected. This subsample was used to develop
the regression weights. The remaining one-third of the sample (60 males
and 33 females) was used as a hold-out sample for the purpose of cross-
validation. Due to missing data, the actual size of the development sample
was slightly smaller.
1977 Terborg, Peters, Itgen and Smith 97

RESULTS
The results of the step-wise regression of attitudes on personal data and
on organizational data are presented in Table 3. For personal data, the
multiple R was computed to be .48, accounting for 23.3 percent of the
variance. Sex and education accounted for 22.2 percent of the variance,
while marital status and age combined contributed only slightly more than
1 percent. Applying the regression weights from the developmental sample
to the hold-out sample resulted in a cross-validated R of .52. Thus, these
results suggest that females with high education tend to have the most favor-
able attitudes toward women as managers. The results also support the
validity of the scale. Further, they hold up when cross-validated.

TABLE 3
Regression of Attitudes toward Women as Managers on
Personal and Organizational Data

Cross-vati-
dated R
(att pre-
Predictors " Muttipte R R Square Simpte r dictors)
Personat Data: Mates and Femates
(n = 186)
Sex .34 .115 .34
Education .47 .222 .19 .52
Marital status .48 .230 .08
Organizationat Data: Mates
(n = 87)
Salary .27 .074 .27
Months since last promotion .33 .107 -.23
Hourly/salary .34 .115 .24 .05
Month with organization .34 .118 .03
Interaction with women .34 .118 -.09
Organizationat Data: Femates
(n = 47)
Salary .28 .079 .28
Hourly/salary .30 .088 .24
Interaction with women .31 .095 -.16 .18
Months with organization .32 .100 .04
Months since last promotion .32 .100 .06
" Predictors are in the order they were entered into the equation.

For females, the multiple R using organizational data was computed to

be .32, accounting for 10.2 percent of the variance. Salary and hourly/
salary pay classification accounted for 8.8 percent of the variance; while
level of interaction with women, months with the organization, and months
since last promotion combined, accounted for only 1.4 percent of the
variance. The cross-validated R was computed to be .18. In all, females with
high salaries who also are classified as salaried rather than hourly employees
appear to have the most favorable attitudes toward women as managers.
However, the rather substantial shrinkage obtained from cross-validation
minimizes any inference with respect to these observed relationships.
°° Academy of Management Journat March

For males, the multiple R using organizational data was computed to be

.34, accounting for 11.8 percent of the variance. Here, salary and months
since last promotion accounted for 10.7 percent of the variance while
hourly/salary pay classification, months with the organization, and inter-
action with women combined, accounted for 1.1 percent of the variance.
Although the simple r between attitudes and hourly/salary classification was
.24 (n = 120, p < .05), indicating that salaried employees have more
favorable attitudes toward women than hourly employees, once salary was
placed in the equation, knowledge of pay classification added little to the
predicted variance. The cross-validated R was computed to be .05. Thus,
while the initial R suggests that males with high salaries who have recently
been promoted tend to have the most favorable attitudes toward women, as
with the female sample, the shrinkage obtained upon cross-validation gives
us no reason to place any confidence in the observed relationships between
attitudes toward women as managers and organizational variables found
with the developmental samples.

DISCUSSION

The results of regressing attitude scores on personal data clearly suggest

that among the employees sampled, women with formal education tend to
have the most favorable attitudes toward women as managers. Age and
marital status do not contribute appreciably toward predicting attitudes.
Further, these findings hold up when cross-validated. However, when
organizational data are used as predictors, the results obtained from a
developmental sample do not cross-validate to a holdout sample. This
occurred for both the male and the female samples. Thus, it appears that
organizational data do not consistently relate to attitudes toward women as
managers. It should be noted that the sample included a wide cross-section
of the organizational hierarchy, and as a result, it is unlikely that the low
cross-validated Rs would have occurred due to a restriction in the organiza-
tional levels sampled.
In some respects, this observed lack of relationship can be interpreted
favorably. The focus of affirmative action programs has been directed
toward management positions. It is reasonable to assume that male man-
agers would feel the most threatened by the implementation of such pro-
grams, and that as a result, there would be a negative relationship between
level in the organization and favorable attitudes toward women as man-
agers. The obtained results suggest that at least among those sampled, there
is no evidence of a negative relationship between level in the organization—
based on hourly/salary pay classification and salary level—and favorable
attitudes toward women as managers. Further, this lack of relationship was
observed at a time when the sampled organization was actively hiring and
promoting women into management level positions.
1977 Terborg, Peters, Itgen and Smith 99

Of additional interest, Staines, Tavris, and Jayaratne (1973) state that

women who have achieved high status positions tend to view other women as
competitors and tend to possess negative attitudes toward these women.
They have labeled this phenomenon the "queen bee syndrome." However,
the results from this study suggest that women with high levels of educa-
tion have the most favorable attitudes toward women as managers. Assum-
ing that education level covaries positively with level in the organization,
then these findings are in opposition to the predictions of the queen bee
syndrome.
In conclusion, data supporting the validity of the WAMS as a measure
of attitudes toward women as managers were presented. Further, while
organizational data do not relate consistently to attitudes toward women as
managers, the personal data of sex and education do consistently predict
attitudes toward women as managers. Hopefully, future use of the WAMS
in field settings will increase the available knowledge concerning the validity
of the scale and the influence of sex-role stereotypes on subsequent discrimi-
natory behavior directed toward women.

REEERENCES

1. Bass, B. M., J. Krusell, and R. A. Alexander. "Male Managers' Attitudes Toward Work-
ing Women," American Behaviorat Scientist, Vol. 15 (1971), 221-236.
2. Bond, J. R., and W. E. Vinacke. "Coalitions in Mixed-Sex Triads," Sociometry, Vol.
24(1961), 61-65.
3. Bowman, G. W., N. B. Worthy, and S. A. Greyson. "Problems in Review: Are Women
Executives People?," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43 (1965), 52-67.
4. Broverman, J. K., S. R. Vogel, D. M. Broverman, R. E. Clarkson, and P. S. Rosen-
krantz. "Sex-role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal," The Journat of Sociat Issues,
Vol.28 (1972), 59-78.
5. Crowne, D., and D. Marlowe. The Approvat Motive (New York: Wiley, 1964).
6. Day, D. R., and R. M. Stogdill. "Leader Behavior of Male and Female Supervisors: A
Comparative Study," Personnet Psychotogy, Vol. 25 (1972), 353-360.
7. Dipboye, R. L., H. L. Fromkin, and K. Wiback. "Relative Importance of Applicant
Sex, Attractiveness, and Scholastic Standing in Evaluation of Job Applicant Resumes,"
Journat of Apptied Psychotogy, Vol. 60 (1975), 39-45.
8. Edwards, A. L. Tectmiques of Attitude Scate Construction (New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1957).
9. Fidell, L. S. "Empirical Verification of Sex Discrimination in Hiring Practices in
Psychology," American Psychotogist, Vol. 25 (1970), 1094-1098.
10. Hansen, D. "Sex Differences and Supervision," (Paper presented at the 82nd Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1974).
11. llgen, D. R., and J. R. Terborg. "Sex Discrimination and Sex-Role Stereotypes: Are
They Synonymous? No!," Organizationat Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 14
(1975), 154-157.
12. Kootz, E. D. "Women's Bureau Looks to the Future," Monthty Labor Review, Vol. 93
0910), 3-9.
13. Levitin, T., R. P. Quinn, and G. L. Staines. "Sex Discrimination Against the American
Working Woman,"/i/?7en'con Behaviorat Scientist, Vol. 15 (1971), 238-254.
14. Likert, R. "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," Archives of Psychotogy,
Vol. 140 (1932), 44-53.
15. Lirtzman, S., and M. Wahba. "Determinants of Coalitional Behavior of Men and
Women: Sex Roles or Situational Requirements?," Journat of Apptied Psychotogy, Vol.
56(1972), 406-411.
100 Academy of Management Journal March

16. Maier, N. R. "Male Versus Female Discussion Leaders," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 23
(1970), 455-461.
17. Manhardt, P. J. "Job Orientation of Male and Female College Graduates in Business,"
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 25 (1972), 361-368.
18. Matthews, E. "Employment Implications of Psychological Characteristics of Men and
Women," in M. E. Katzell and W. C. Byham (Eds.), Women in the Work Force (New
York: Behavioral Publications, 1972).
19. Megargee, E. I. "Influence of Sex-Roles on the Manifestation of Leadership," Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 53 (1969), 377-382.
20. Orth, C. D., and F. Jacobs. "Women in Management: Pattern for Change," Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 49 (1971), 139.
21. Peters, L. H., J. R. Terborg, and J. Taynor. "Women as Managers Scale (WAMS):
A Measure of Attitudes Toward Women in Management Positions," JSAS Catalog of
Selected Documents in Psychology, Ms. No. 585 (1974).
22. Rosen, B., and T. H. Jerdee. "Influence of Sex Role Stereotypes on Personnel Deci-
sions," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 (1974a), 9-14.
23. Rosen, B., and T. H. Jerdee. "Effects of Applicant's Sex and Difficulty of Job on
Evaluations of Candidates for Managerial Positions," Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 59 (1974b), 511-512.
24. Rosen, B., and T. H. Jerdee. "Sex Stereotyping in the Executive Suite," Harvard Busi-
ness Review, Vol. 52 (1974c), 45-58.
25. Rosen, B., and T. H. Jerdee. "The Psychological Basis for Sex Role Stereotypes: A
Note on Terborg and Ilgen's Conclusions," Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
formance,Vol. 14(1975), 151-153.
26. Schein, V. E. "The Relationship Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Manage-
ment Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 (1973), 95-100.
27. Shaw, E. A. "Differential Impact of Negative Stereotyping in Employee Selection,"
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 25 (1972), 333-338.
28. Spence, J. R., and R. Helmreich. "The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An Objective
Instrument to Measure Attitudes toward the Rights and Roles of Women in Contem-
porary Society," JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, Ms. No. 153
(1972).
29. Staines, G., C. Tavris and T. E. Jayaratne. "The Queen Bee Syndrome," in C. Tavris
(Ed.), The Female Experience (Del Mar, Calif.: CRM, 1973).
30. Stein, D. D., J. A. Hnrdyck and M. B. Smith. "Race and Beliefs: An Open and Shut
Case," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1 (1956), 281-289.
31. Terborg, J. R., and D. R. ilgen. "A Theoretical Approach to Sex Discrimination in
Traditionally Masculine Occupations," Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
formance, Vol. 13 (1975), 352-376.
32. Terborg, J. R., L. H. Peters, and D. R. Ilgen. "The Description and Validation of a
Questionnaire on Attitudes toward Women as Managers" (Unpublished paper, Purdue
University, 1974).
33. U.S. Department of Labor: Women's Bureau. Fact Sheet on the Earnings Gap (Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S.D.L., 1971).
34. Vogel, S. R., 1. K. Broverman, D. M. Broverman, F. E. Clarkson, and P. S. Rosen-
krantz. "Maternal Employment and Perception of Sex Roles among College Students,"
Developmental Psychology, Vol. 3 (1970), 384-381.