Previous research demonstrates expectations predict actual performance. These studies evaluated the influence of other variables, specifically task sex orientation, biological gender, and sex-role identification, on performance expectancies. Two studies investigated sex differences in performance expectancies: Study 1 used a task normatively favoring males; Study 2 used a task normatively unbiased by gender. Subjects were 207 undergraduates, approximately equal numbers of males and females. Experimenter sex was controlled. Performance expectancies were influenced by interactions of task sex orientation with biological gender and task sex orientation with sex-role identification, but these variables became secondary to personal experience. These findings were interpreted as having implications on initial choice and consequent involvement in novel activities and situations.

Superiority, control, and dominance theories of disparaging humor were reviewed, and sexist humor was studied as representative of the field. The effects of educational level and sex of subject on the judgment of humor in sexist material were investigated, utilizing a set of 50 cartoons and jokes devised to approximate overlapping standard curves on the dimensions sexist content and humor. Subjects were 71 males and 73 females, comprising 84 undergraduates and 60 doctoral graduate students. Each subject performed a forced Q sort of the jokes, with 104 rating for humor and 40 rating for sexism to establish content weights. Subjects' rankings, age, sex, and educational level were recorded upon completion of the task. Significant negative correlations were found between educational level and judgment of humor in sexist material, and female subjects judged sexist material to be significantly less funny than males. Some support was indicated for existing theories.