The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
No Credit Where Credit Is Due: Attributional Rationalization of Women's Success in Male-Female Teams.
Abstract
In 3 experimental studies, the authors explored how ambiguity about the source of a successful joint performance outcome promotes attributional rationalization, negatively affecting evaluations of women. Participants read descriptions of a mixed-sex dyad's work and were asked to evaluate its male and female members. Results indicated that unless the ambiguity about individual contribution to the dyad's successful joint outcome was constrained by providing feedback about individual team member performance (Study 1) or by the way in which the task was said to have been structured (Study 2) or unless the negative expectations about women's performance were challenged by clear evidence of prior work competence (Study 3), female members were devalued as compared with their male counterparts-they were rated as being less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role in work on the task. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Heilman, M. E. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234 · Cited by 2,482
Self-citationA common language effect size statistic
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.361 · Cited by 934 · cited 1×
“Calculation of McGraw and Wong’s (1992) common language effect size statistics underscores the practical importance of these findings.”
Background
Cited by
Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108 · Cited by 1,114
Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: the implied communality deficit
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81 · Cited by 999
Self-citationWomen's underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0014412 · Cited by 957
Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.12.002 · Cited by 492
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547012472684 · Cited by 469
Metadata
- Authors
- Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 905-916
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2144477282
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 30.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: No Credit Where Credit Is Due: Attributional Rationalization of Women's Success in Male-Female Teams. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905
- The paper
- Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No Credit Where Credit Is Due: Attributional Rationalization of Women's Success in Male-Female Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.905
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.