Research examined in this review shows that when women and men perform the same acts or produce similar products, evaluations often differ, frequently in ways which are not consistent. In general, evaluation favors men over women when a competent performance is being assessed, while women are favored over men when an incompetent outcome is being evaluated. These findings are explained in terms of sex-role congruency. In addition, research on causal attributions of performance is reviewed. It is found that successful male performance tends to be seen as repeatable; attributions are made to stable and internal causes such as skill and ability. It is further shown that repeated successful female performance cannot be depended upon, since attributions are made to luck, an external factor, or to effort, an unstable factor. Also, lack of ability is used to explain female lack of success more than male lack of success. Finally, the process of evaluating women's performance is summarized in three major steps: initial perception of performance, comparison of such perceptions to norms, and prediction of future performance. (Author)