Brannon ch07

ch07.
qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 159
Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity
The Stereotype Trap

Newsweek, November 6, 2000
From white men cant jump to girls cant do math, negative images that are pervasive in the culture can make us choke during tests of ability. . . . The power of stereotypes, scientists had long figured, lay in their ability to change the behavior of the person holding the stereotype. . . . But five years ago, Stanford University psychologist Claude Steele showed something else: It is the targets of a stereotype whose behavior is most powerfully affected by it. A stereotype that pervades the culture the way ditzy blondes and forgetful seniors do makes people painfully aware of how society views themso painfully aware, in fact, that knowledge of the stereotype can affect how well they do on intellectual and other tasks. (Begley, 2000, pp. 6667)
ccording to Sharon Begley (2000), stereotypes present a trap into which many people can fall. In 1995, Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson reported on a study that showed how the existence of negative stereotypes affects those who are part of the stereotyped groups. They proposed that people feel threatened in situations in which they believe that their performance will identify them as examples of their groups negative stereotype. Steele and Aronson labeled this situation stereotype threat because the presence of these negative stereotypes threatens performance and self-concept. Even if the person does not believe the stereotype or accept that it applies, the threat of being identified with a negative stereotype can be an ever-present factor that puts a person in the spotlight and creates tension and anxiety about performance. By setting up a situation that manipulated expectations of the implications of taking a test, Steele and Aronson showed that those expectations affected participants performance. For example, African Americans who believed that the test they were taking was a test of basic scholastic ability performed worse than African Americans who thought the test was just another test. Women who believed that the mathematics test would reveal their underlying ability performed more poorly than women who had different beliefs about the tests diagnostic ability (Steele, 1997). In addition, African Americans and women performed more poorly than White men, who are not threatened by negative stereotypes of their abilities in math. However, White men can be threatened by stereotypes of math ability. A study (Smith & White, 2002) that reminded White men that Asians are superior at
159
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 160
160
Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity
math provoked poorer performance on a math test. Some people get a double dose of stereotype threat, such as Latino women, who were affected by stereotype threat on a test of mathematical and spatial ability (Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002). Begleys (2000) article included examples of how widespread stereotype threat may be, how easily stereotype threat can be summoned, and how powerful stereotypes are in affecting performance. Reminding people of their membership in a stereotyped group, such as asking them to mark a question about their gender just before starting the test, was enough of a cue to affect performance negatively. However, when reminded of their affiliation with a positively stereotyped group, Asian American womens math performance improved. Additional research (Smith & White, 2002) suggests that nullifying stereotype threats may not be too difficult. Just the suggestion that men and women perform equally well on this test was enough to avert the effects of stereotype threat on a math test. Stereotypes thus can be a positive influence, but much more evidence indicates that they can do damage and require additional steps to nullify. This powerful process affects both those who impose the stereotypes and those who are the targets of stereotyping.
From Gender Roles to Gender Stereotypes

As Chapters 5 and 6 explored, a gender role consists of activities that men and women engage in with different frequencies. For example, in the United States, repairing cars and repairing clothing are associated predominantly with men and women, respectively. These gender-related behaviors thus become part of a pattern accepted as masculine or feminine, not because of any innate reason for these differences, but because of the association with women and men. A gender stereotype consists of beliefs about the psychological traits and characteristics of, as well as the activities appropriate to, men or women. Gender roles are defined by behaviors, but gender stereotypes are beliefs and attitudes about masculinity and femininity. The concepts of gender role and gender stereotype tend to be related. When people associate a pattern of behavior with either women or men, they may overlook individual variations and exceptions and come to believe that the behavior is inevitably associated with one gender but not the other. Therefore, gender roles furnish the material for gender stereotypes. Gender stereotypes are very influential; they affect conceptualizations of women and men and establish social categories for gender. These categories represent what people think, and even when beliefs vary from reality, the beliefs can be very powerful forces in judgments of self and others, as the headline story for this chapter showed. Therefore, the history, structure, and function of stereotypes are important topics in understanding the impact of gender on peoples lives.
Stereotypes of Women and Men

Chapter 6 discussed childrens acceptance of the rigid formulation of what is acceptable for women and men, but gender stereotyping is not unique to children or even to contem-
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 161
161
porary society. The current gender stereotypes, especially those about women, reflect beliefs that appeared during the 19th century, the Victorian era (Lewin, 1984c). Before the 19th century, most people lived and worked on farms where men and women worked together. The Industrial Revolution changed the lives of a majority of people in Europe and North America by moving men outside the home to earn money and leaving women at home to manage households and children. This separation was unprecedented in history, forcing men and women to adapt to different environments and roles. As men coped with the harsh business and industrial world, women were left in the relatively unvarying and sheltered environments of their homes. These changes produced two beliefs: the Doctrine of Two Spheres and the Cult of True Womanhood. The Doctrine of Two Spheres is the belief that womens and mens interests diverge women and men have their separate areas of influence (Lewin, 1984a). For women, the areas of influence are home and children, whereas mens sphere includes work and the outside world. These two spheres are different, with little overlap, forming opposite ends of one dimension. This conceptualization of opposition forms the basis not only for social views of gender, but also for psychologys formulation of the measurement of masculinity and femininity.
The Cult of True Womanhood. The Cult of True Womanhood arose between 1820 and 1860. The attributes of True Womanhood, by which a woman judged herself and was judged by her husband, her neighbors, and society could be divided into four cardinal virtuespiety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity (Welter, 1978, p. 313). Womens magazines and religious literature of the 19th century furnished evidence of societys emphasis on these four areas. The Cult of True Womanhood held that the combination of these characteristics provided the promise of happiness and power to the Victorian woman, and without these no womans life could have real meaning. The first virtue was piety, which originated with societys view of women as more naturally pious than men. Womens natural superiority also appeared in their refinement, delicacy, and tender sensibilities. Religious studies were seen as compatible with femininity and deemed appropriate for women, whereas other types of education were thought to detract from womens femininity. These other types of education included studying through formal means and even reading romantic novelseither of which might lead women to ignore religion, become overly romantic, and lose their virtue or purity (that is, their virginity). Although women were seen as uninterested in sex, they were vulnerable to seduction. The loss of the second virtue, purity, was a fate worse than death. Having lost her purity, a woman was without value or hope: Purity was as essential as piety to a young woman, its absence as unnatural and unfeminine. Without it she was, in fact no woman at all, but a member of some lower order (Welter, 1978, p. 315). Men, on the other hand, were not naturally as religious and thus not naturally as virtuous as women. According to this view of True Womanhood, men were, at best, prone to sin and seduction, and at worst, brutes. True Women would withstand the advances of men, dazzling and shaming them with their virtue. Men were supposed to be both religious and pure, although not to the same extent as women, and through association with True Women, men could increase their own virtue. True Women could elevate men.
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 162
162
The third virtue of the Cult of True Womanhood was submissiveness, a characteristic not true of and not desirable in men (Welter, 1978). Women were expected to be weak, dependent, and timid, whereas men were supposed to be strong, wise, and forceful. Dependent women wanted strong men, not sensitive ones. These couples formed families in which the husband was unquestionably superior and the wife would not consider questioning his authority. The last of the four virtues, domesticity, was connected to both submissiveness and to the Doctrine of the Two Spheres. True Women were wives whose concern was with domestic affairsmaking a home and having children: The true womans place was unquestionably by her own firesideas daughter, sister, but most of all as wife and mother (Welter, 1978, p. 320). These domestic duties included cooking and nursing the sick, especially a sick husband or child. Table 7.1 summarizes the elements of the Cult of True Womanhood. Women who personified these virtues passed the test of True Womanhood. Of course, the test was so demanding that few, if any, women met the criteria. However, beginning in the early 1800s, womens magazines as well as teachings from social and religious leaders held these virtues as attainable and urged women to match these ideals. Although the Cult of True Womanhood was dominant during the 19th century, remnants linger in our present-day culture and influence current views of femininity.
Masculinities. The 19th-century idealization of women also had implications for men, who were seen as the opposite of women in a number of ways. Women were passive, dependent, pure, refined, and delicate; men were active, independent, coarse, and strong. These divisions between male and female domains, the Doctrine of the Two Spheres, formed the basis for the polarization of male and female interests and activities. The Cult of True Womanhood reached its height in the late Victorian period, toward the end of the 19th century. The Victorian ideal of manhood was the basis for what Joseph Pleck (1981,
TABLE 7.1
Elements of Stereotyping of Women and Men
The Cult of True Womanhood Piety: True Women were naturally religious. Purity: True Women were sexually uninterested. Submissiveness: True Women were weak, dependent, and timid. Domesticity: True Womens domain was in the home.
Male Sex Role Identity No Sissy Stuff: A stigma is attached to feminine characteristics. The Big Wheel: Men need success and status. The Sturdy Oak: Men should have toughness, confidence, and self-reliance. Give Em Hell: Men should have an aura of aggression, daring, and violence.
Sources: Based on The Male Sex Role: Our Cultures Blueprint of Manhood and What Its Done for Us Lately, (p. 12), by Robert Brannon, in Deborah S. David & Robert Brannon (Eds.), The Forty-Nine Percent Majority, 1976, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; and The Cult of True Womanhood: 18201860, by Barbara Welter, in Michael Gordon (Ed.), The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martins Press.
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 163
163
1995) referred to as the Male Sex Role Identity (now called the Male Gender Role Identity). Pleck discussed the Male Gender Role Identity as the dominant conceptualization of masculinity in our society and as a source of problems, both for society and for individual men. R. W. Connell (1995) explored the historical origins of attitudes toward masculinity. Connell looked back into 16th-century Europe and the changing social and religious climate to trace the development of individualism. He contended that industrialization, world exploration, and civil wars became activities associated with men and formed the basis for modern masculinity. Pleck (1984) also reviewed the social climate of the late 19th century, citing examples from the late 1800s of the increasing perception that men were not as manly as they once had been. Growing industrialization pressured men to seek employment in order to be good providers for their families, roles that became increasingly difficult for men to fulfill (Bernard, 1981; Faludi, 1999), thus endangering their masculinity. In addition, education became a factor in employment, and men often held better jobs (and were thus better providers) when they were educated. Pleck discussed how the occupation of early-childhood educator became the province of women, and how these female elementary school teachers tried to make boys into well-behaved pupilsin other words, sissies. This issue remains part of a debate over boys in the classroom (Kimmel, 2000; Sommers, 2000). The prohibition against being a sissy and the rejection of the feminine are strong components of modern masculinity. According to Robert Brannon (1976), No Sissy Stuff is one of the four themes of the Male Sex Role. The other three themes include The Big Wheel, which describes mens quest for success and status as well as their need to be looked up to. The Sturdy Oak component describes mens air of toughness, confidence, and self-reliance, especially in a crisis. Finally, the Give Em Hell aspect of the Male Sex Role reflects the acceptability of violence, aggression, and daring in mens behavior. Table 7.1 summarizes these elements. The more closely that a man conforms to these characteristics, the closer he is to being a real man. As Brannon pointed out, the pressure is strong to live up to this idealization of masculinity, which is equally as ideal and unrealistic as the true woman of the Cult of True Womanhood. However, even men who are fairly successful in adopting the Male Gender Role Identity may be poorly adjusted, unhappy peoplethis role prohibits close personal relationships, even with wives or children, and requires persistent competition and striving for achievement. These difficulties lead men to make significant departures from the roles requirements. Pleck (1981, 1995) proposed a new model, which he called Sex Role Strain (now Gender Role Strain), which departs in many ways from the Male Gender Role Identity. Pleck argued that during the 1960s and 1970s, both men and women started to make significant departures from their traditional roles as men began to behave in ways that violated the Male Gender Role. He also suggested that the features of the Male Gender Role Identity have retained a powerful influence over what both men and women believe men should be. Many men deviate from the role, and some even believe that the role is harmful to them personally and to society, making adherence to the role a strain. Even men who succeed feel the strain in doing so, and the toxic components of the role present problems
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 164
164
even for the successful. Confirming research (Mahalik, Locke, Theodore, Cournoyer, & Lloyd, 2001; Robertson et al., 2002) supports this view. Connell (1987, 1992, 1995) argued that gender has been constructed as part of each society throughout history, a view that is consistent with the belief that gender is something that people do rather than part of what people are (West & Zimmerman, 1987). This construction of masculinity includes both sanctioned and less accepted behaviors. Thus, masculinity varies with both time and place, creating a multitude of masculinities. For each society, Connell contended that one version of masculinity is sanctioned as the one to which men should adhere, which he termed hegemonic masculinity. This version of masculinity attempts to subordinate femininity as well as less accepted versions of masculinity, such as male homosexuality. Like Pleck, Connell recognized many disadvantages to this narrow, dominant form of masculinity and saw many problems for society and for individual men who adhere to it. Despite the notion that masculinity has undergone drastic changes in the past two decades, evidence indicates little change in hegemonic masculinity and strong representation of the four themes of the Male Sex Role (Bereska, 2003). Boys and men are still supposed to be stoic, aggressive, dependable, and not feminine.
Development of Stereotypes
In examining the research on social theories of gender development, Chapter 6 reviewed the process of developing gender knowledge and identity, including some information about forming gender stereotypes. Along with the process of developing gender knowledge comes gender stereotyping. Thus, children as young as 3 years old start to show signs of gender stereotyping (Martin & Little, 1990). This development is not uniform or simple, and 6year-old children showed a pattern of selective stereotyping in which they made genderstereotypical judgments about children whose toy interests were similar to their own but failed to make stereotypical judgments for children whose interests were different from their own. This behavior probably reflected a more complete development of knowledge about self and others like self, which extended to gender. Children do even more gender stereotyping as they get older (Martin, Wood, & Little, 1990), and 8- to 10-year-olds made stereotypical judgments for both genders. This pattern of stereotype development appears in Table 7.2. Children in the first stage have learned characteristics and behaviors associated directly with each gender, such as the toy preferences of each. In this stage, they have not learned the many indirect associations with gender, associations that are essential for stereotypes to form. In the second stage, children have begun to develop the indirect associations for behaviors associated with their own gender, but not yet for the other gender. In the third stage, children have learned these indirect associations for the other gender as well as their own, giving them the capability of making stereotypical judgments of both women and men. A specific cognitive process allows children (and adults) to maintain stereotypes once they have formed (Meehan & Janik, 1990). This process is called illusory correlation: the erroneous perception of covariation between two events when no correlation exists, or the perception of a correlation as stronger than it actually is (Meehan & Janik,
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 165

TABLE 7.2
165
Stages of Gender Stereotype Development
Stage
1 2 3
Gender Knowledge
Behaviors and characteristics directly associated with gender Beginnings of indirect associations with gender for own sex but not other sex Complex, indirect gender-related associations for same and other sex
Status of Gender Stereotypes

Undeveloped Self-stereotype but none for other sex Stereotypes for self and other sex
Source: Based on The Development of Gender Stereotype Components, by C. L. Martin, C. H. Wood, & J. K. Little, 1990, Child Development, 61, pp. 18911904.
1990, p. 84). These researchers maintained that people perceive that relationships exist between gender and various behaviors when no relationship exists, or when the relationship is not as strong as their perception indicates. Studies (Meehan & Janik, 1990; Susskind, 2003) have demonstrated that illusory correlation operates in 2nd- and 4th-grade children in a way that is consistent with developing gender stereotypes. Furthermore, these studies indicated that childrens tendency to gender stereotype creates distortions in their memory for gender-related information. The perception of correlations can be an important factor in maintaining stereotypes for both children and adults; when people believe that activities are related to one or the other gender, then they feel comfortable in thinking in terms of these categorizations. This perceptual bias acts to maintain stereotypes. However, one study (Susskind, 2003) indicated that children do not ignore counterstereotypical information, and the presentation of such information may be a way to diminish gender stereotyping. Thus, when children see fathers cooking and mothers performing home repairs, these observations may act to decrease stereotyping by breaking down illusory correlations. Gender stereotyping follows age-related trends similar to the development of other gender knowledge. That is, younger children show less gender stereotyping than older children (Durkin & Nugent, 1998), men are subject to harsher stereotyping than women, and girls stereotype less strongly than boys. Studying gender stereotyping in individuals ranging from kindergarten children to college students showed that the flexible application of gender stereotypes increases with age (Biernat, 1991). Younger children relied more on gender information than on information about individuals when making judgments about people, whereas older individuals took into account information about deviations from gender stereotypes. This pattern of development indicates that the acquisition of full information concerning gender stereotypes is accompanied by greater flexibility in the use of stereotypes. The tendency to rely on the stereotype is always present, and both children and adults showed a tendency to attribute gender-stereotypical traits to women, men, and children, including a reluctance to attribute feminine characteristics to males and a tendency to associate femininity with being childlike (Powlishta, 2000).
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 166
166
Although stereotype flexibility increases with age, the knowledge that underlies this development also has negative implications. Between the ages of 6 and 10 years old, children become aware of the stereotyping that others do (McKown & Weinstein, 2003). In addition, children from stigmatized groups (such as African American and Latino children) become aware of others stereotyping before children from more privileged groups did so. This knowledge builds the basis for stereotype threat, and children with knowledge of the stereotyping process from stigmatized groups were more likely to exhibit the negative performance effects of stereotype threat than were other children. Hence, this negative effect of stereotyping occurs along with increased knowledge. Therefore, the development of gender stereotypes begins early, with 3-year-olds knowing about gender-related differences in behavior. As children acquire information about gender, they become capable of forming and maintaining elaborate stereotypes for men and women, but they also become more willing to make exceptions to the gender rules they have learned. Nevertheless, gender stereotypes provide a system for classifying people that operates throughout peoples lives; these influence their expectations for self and others, as well as the judgments they form about people based on their gender-related characteristics and behaviors.
The Process and Implications of Stereotyping

The term stereotyping has negative connotations, but some theorists do not emphasize the negative aspects of the process. Some (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000) have concentrated on the convenience of this type of categorical cognitive processing, and others (Jussim, McCauley, & Lee, 1995) have contended that stereotypes have positive as well as negative effects. Yet other theorists have argued that stereotyping produces such a magnitude of distortions and incorrect generalizations that its disadvantages are overwhelming (Allen, 1995; Bobo, 1999; Glick & Fiske, 2001). The negative effects of stereotyping are apparent in stereotype threat, the subject of the headline article for this chapter. Those who study stereotyping as a cognitive process (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000) emphasize peoples need to streamline the way they interact with a complex world; forming simplified categories is a way to do so. The limits on childrens cognitive abilities make this need even more pressing during childhood. Taking this view, gender stereotyping is a normal cognitive process that allows children to form categories based on gender and to understand this important attribute, if in a simplified and distorted way (Martin & Halverson, 1981). The simplification and distortion inherent in stereotyping can have negative effects, but the positive benefits to children of forming gender stereotypes outweigh the negative effects of making some mistakes and thinking too narrowly about gender-related behaviors. Therefore, the function of gender stereotyping can be understood in developmental terms as a useful way to approach the complexities of gender. A knowledge of gender stereotyping in children does not necessarily lead to an understanding of the factors that maintain stereotypical behavior in adults (Eagly, 1987b). The advantages of gender stereotyping during childhood do not necessitate that adults maintain gender stereotypes. Research has indicated that older children, adolescents, and adults become more flexible in their application of stereotypes; they are willing to make
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 167
167
exceptions to the dictates of their gender stereotypes, both for themselves and for others. However, gender stereotypes persist throughout life. Stereotypes provide not only descriptions of how people think about women and men but also prescriptions about what women and men should be, which means that gender stereotyping places limits on what traits and behaviors are allowed (Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Thus, theorists and researchers have explored the formation, function, and effects of holding gender stereotypes. One issue relevant to stereotyping is its accuracy. The kernel of truth position holds that stereotypes have some valid as well as some inaccurate points (Martin, 1987). Gender roles, the set of behaviors performed more often by men or women, form the basis for gender stereotypes. That is, the social roles that women and men fulfill allow people to perceive differences between men and women and to extend these differences to areas where none exists. The issue of accuracy has provoked a great deal of controversy but no resolution. A meta-analysis of studies on the accuracy of gender stereotyping (Swim, 1994) confirmed that overestimation and underestimation occur. Perceptions of gender differences may be accurate when measuring average group judgments, but individuals differ a great deal, and some individuals exhibit substantial inaccuracies (Hall & Carter, 1999). Such inaccuracies should create problems, and prejudice and discrimination are among the effects that arise from stereotyping. Prejudice is a negative evaluation of an entire group, which allows prejudiced people to react to members of the group without any personal contact or without knowing anything about people in the group as individuals. Discrimination is behavior that holds people or groups apart from others and results in different treatments for those people. Thus, prejudice is an attitude but discrimination is behavior. People may be prejudiced yet not actively discriminate, but the two often go together. Psychologys traditional view of prejudice holds that people within a group (the ingroup) form negative feelings about those in another group (the out-group) (Allport, 1954). The identification of the out-group may include stereotyping that sharpens the difference between the two groups and erases the individual differences of those people in the outgroup. The results of prejudice include an increased feeling of worth for people in the ingroup and a devaluation of those in the out-group. For example, one study (Nielsen, 2002) explored the types and frequency of derogatory public remarks based on ethnicity and gender and found that women and people of color were frequent targets of this type of discrimination. Every one of the African Americans in this study reported that he or she had been the targets of offensive racist remarks made by a stranger in public. Does gender fit into this model? Are men and women in-groups and out-groups to each other? Listening to the conversations of groups of women or men saying terrible things about the other may seem to confirm this view, but research results are not consistent with such a conceptualization. Although women are the targets of various types of discrimination in terms of economic, political, educational, and professional achievement, attitudes about women are not uniformly negative. Indeed, one line of research from Alice Eagly and her colleagues (Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1991) showed that women as a category receive more favorable evaluations than men. Results from a meta-analysis (Feingold, 1998) indicated that women received slightly more favorable ratings than men. Thus, people in general have positive feelings about the characteristics stereotypically associated with
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 168
168
women; people believe that these characteristics provide fine examples of human qualities. These findings are not consistent with an overall prejudice against women. Peter Glick, Susan Fiske, and their colleagues (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Glick et al., 2000) have researched this puzzle in gender stereotyping and formulated interesting answers. The focus of their research is their conceptualization of sexism, that is, prejudice based on sex or gender. Their view separates positive from negative aspects of sexism. They call the negative aspects hostile sexism, and this concept includes negative attitudes toward women. They also consider benevolent sexism, which they conceptualize as positive attitudes that nonetheless serve to belittle women and keep them subservient. Benevolent sexism is reflected in the attitudes that women deserve special treatment, deserve to be set on a pedestal, and should be revered. Despite the positive nature of these beliefs, people who hold such attitudes tend to see women as weaker, more in need of protection, and less competent than men (Fiske et al., 2002). Ironically, it may be the favorable traits stereotypically associated with women that serve to perpetuate their lower status (Glick & Fiske, 2001). When people see women as warm and caring but less competent than men, they may give women positive evaluations but still feel that women need men to protect and take care of them. Thus, womens subservience is justified. Men are not exempt from this type of ambivalent sexism; the stereotypic characteristics of men can also be analyzed into hostile and benevolent components that are analogous to those that apply to women, but womens hostile attitudes toward men do not erase mens dominance (Glick & Fiske, 1999). This type of benevolent prejudice may rationalize racism as well as sexism, casting the dominant group as benevolent protectors rather than oppressors. Research on the contents of stereotypes (Eckes, 2002; Fiske et al., 2002) has shown that combinations of two dimensionscompetence and warmthcapture many beliefs about stereotyped groups. The mixed values of low competencehigh warmth and high competencelow warmth have been of most interest to researchers, but the two other combinations of high warmthhigh competence and low warmthlow competence also occur. Figure 7.1 shows these combinations, the feelings associated with each, and examples. Research on this stereotype content model (Eckes, 2002; Fiske et al., 2002) confirmed that people evaluated a number of lower-status groups (women, ethnic minority groups, older people, disabled people) as less competent but warm and thus rated them positively. People from some high-status groups were not so well-liked; they were respected and judged as competent but not warm. Therefore, this view promotes a complex analysis of the components of stereotypes as well as a broad view of the effects of such stereotyping as it applies to gender and other stereotyped categories. Thus, several lines of research highlight the negative aspects of stereotyping and point out that stereotyping has wider implications than ease of cognitive processing. For children, such simplification may be a necessary part of dealing with a complex world, but adolescents and adults are able to deal with individual information, yet tend not to do so. Rather, adults stereotype on a variety of dimensions, including gender. Stereotypes form the basis for prejudice and discrimination, and both men and women are subject to these negative processes.
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 169
169
High High
Warmth
Low
Admiration Admired leaders Competence
Envy Business executives Feminists
Pity Homemakers
Contempt People in prison
Low
FIGURE 7.1 Combinations of the Two Dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model and Examples of Each Combination
Perceptions of Women and Men

The stereotype of women as warm and caring but incompetent and men as competent but not warm (Fiske et al., 2002) is consistent with the Victorian notion of the Cult of True Womanhood and with the Male Gender Role Identity. Are women and men still measured by these standards, or have the changes in womens and mens behaviors produced changes in the stereotypes and broadened the boundaries of acceptable behaviors for men and women? The content of gender stereotypes may be analyzed into four separate components that people use to differentiate male from femaletraits, behaviors, physical characteristics, and occupations (Deaux & Lewis, 1984). All these components are relatively independent, but people associate one set of features from each of these with women and another set with men. On the basis of knowledge of one dimension, people extend judgments to the other three. Figure 7.2 shows the components of this model; the arrows indicate the associations people make among components. Given a gender label for a target person, people will make inferences concerning the persons appearance, traits, gender role behaviors, and occupation. Information about one component can affect inferences made about the others, and people will attempt to maintain consistency among the components. Physical features seem to be central; people viewed men and women as differing more in physical features than in psychological characteristics (Deaux & Lewis, 1984).
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 170
170
Physical appearance
Traits
Behaviors
Occupations
FIGURE 7.2 Components of Deaux and Lewiss Model of Gender Stereotyping
As Figure 7.2 shows, when people have information about behaviors, they make inferences about traits, and information about occupations can affect judgments about behaviors. However, physical appearance affected judgments about the other components more strongly than information about traits, behaviors, or occupations influenced judgments about appearance. In addition, specific personal information can outweigh gender as a factor in subsequent judgments about a person. For example, men who were described as managing the house or taking care of children were also judged as likely to be emotional and gentle. Such counterstereotypical information about men also increased the likelihood that such men would be judged to be nontypical in other ways, such as likely to be homosexual. Although the participants in this stereotyping study saw differences in the physical characteristics, traits, behaviors, and occupations of women and men, their ratings of the two categories reflected the possibility that women may have some characteristics more typical of men, or men may have some characteristics more typical of women. That is, people do not view the stereotypes for women and men as separate and dichotomous categories, but as probabilistic and overlapping. Participants judged the probability of a man and woman having certain characteristics on a scale of 0 (no chance) to 1.00 (certainty). The participants judged the probability that a man would be strong as .66, a high probability but not a certainty. However, they also judged the chances that a woman would be strong as .44, a lower probability but far from unlikely. Although these judgments reflected stereotypical views of the relative strength of men and women, being male was
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 171
171
Just Another Walking Stereotype

Michelle Fisher (2003, p. 40) explained her dilemma: So what if I drive a four-wheel-drive vehicle? Its not a lesbian car, I hear myself whine to people who give me that knowing look when they see me get out of my vehicle for the first time. Her dilemma was not that people might identify her as lesbian by her choice of vehicles. Michelle was not trying to hide her sexual orientation. She described her participation in Gay Pride events, including threats to her safety that resulted from her activism. Those threats did not faze her, but the thought that she fit the stereotype of lesbian did. As I sit here today, I have to face the fact that being perceived as a stereotype is worse than folks chucking bottles at me (p. 40). Nobody likes to be figured out in a split second. I dont care if people know I am gay. . . . But I dont want them to think that because Im gay, they already know everything about me (p. 41).
not perfectly associated with strength, nor was being female associated with complete lack of strength. Therefore, people use several dimensions to categorize men and women, drawing inferences on one dimension based on information from another. What traits are stereotypically associated with these categories? Studies in the 1960s and 1970s often found evidence for beliefs that matched elements of the Male Gender Role Identity or the Cult of True Womanhood, and recent studies have also found remnants of these beliefs (Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, & Lueptow, 2001). (See According to the Media and According to the Research for examples of stereotyping in the media and its potential effects.) However, some recent research has reflected changes in attitudes. Beliefs held by college students in the 1960s showed strong acceptance of gender stereotypes by both college men and women (Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman, & Broverman, 1968). Table 7.3 (p. 174) shows how some of the items that differentiated women and men match the components in the Cult of True Womanhood and Male Gender Role Identity. Not all of the traits these college students named match these categories; for example, one of the characteristics of women was talkative, which does not fit into traits for the Cult of True Womanhood, and college students in the 1960s did not mention sexual purity as a defining trait of women. They did, however, mention several characteristics of men that relate to sex, including worldly and talks freely with men about sex, which matches the suggestion (Good & Sherrod, 2001) for an additional component of the Male Gender Role, Be a Stud. Both the women and men in the study by Rosenkrantz and collegues (1968) and a later study (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972) gave more positive ratings to the characteristics associated with men than with women. Thus, these stereotypes reflected gender bias. The social roles of men and women began to change during the 1960s, and according to several studies, attitudes toward women reflect those changes. Administering the Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS) to students at the same university over a 20-year
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 172
172
White Men Are in Charge

In both television commercials and entertainment programming, White men are more common, more prominent, and more dominant than others. According to a content analysis of commercials, White male characters were more prominent than any other group (Coltrane & Messineo, 2000). Male prominence extended to those who appeared in voice onlymale voices narrated commercials more than 10 times more often than female voices. The patterns of men in positions of authority and men as the voice of authority exist in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and Asia as well as in the United States (Furnham & Mak, 1999). In the United States on entertainment programming, women have a history of underrepresentation. Despite increases in female characters during the 1980s and 1990s, women are not only portrayed less often than men, but womens roles also tend to be less significant and less serious (Harwood & Anderson, 2002). Women have been more likely to be shown as dependent, and around the world, women appear more often at home than in other settings (Furnham & Mak, 1999). Women are not the only group that appears on television as stereotypes. In the United States, African Americans appeared in the background more often than as main characters in commercials, and they were often subordinate to Whites (Coltrane & Messineo, 2000). Additional stereotyping appeared in the portrayal of African American men, who tended to be shown as aggressive but less likely to be shown in home settings or with women. African Americans were less visible, failing to get the attention that White women received. The proportion of African Americans in television commercials (Coltrane & Messineo, 2000) and entertainment programming (Harwood & Anderson, 2002) was not substantially different from their proportion in the actual populationabout 11%. However, African Americans were concentrated in a small number of entertainment programs, which tended to ghettoize these characters. Hispanics were drastically underrepresented in both television commercials (Coltrane & Messineo, 2000) and entertainment programming (Harwood & Anderson, 2002). In addition, entertainment television depicted Hispanics in less positive ways than any other ethnic group. Therefore, televisions depiction of the world is disproportionately White and dominated by White men.
period showed that students became more egalitarian between the 1970s and the 1990s (Spence & Hahn, 1997). Using the same assessment over the same time period, a study with Canadian university students (Loo & Thorpe, 1998) revealed parallel changes. A meta-analysis of studies that used the AWS revealed a positive relationship between feminist attitudes and the year of administration (Twenge, 1997). For women, the relationship was strong, and for men, the relationship was still positive but not as strong. Another study (Prentice & Carranza, 2002) showed changes in the stereotypes for women but not for men; women were seen as having both the traits associated with their traditional gender roles as well as the traits necessary for achievement in nontraditional occupations. Another study (Diekman & Eagly, 2000) indicated that people perceive that gender differences are decreasing, but with faster changes for womens than for mens roles. Therefore, these studies show that attitudes toward women have become more feminist/egalitarian over the past 25 years, which signals some changes in the traditional stereotypes of women, but attitudes toward men have not shown equivalent changes.
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 173
173
Biased Media Portrayals Perpetuate Stereotyping

When people see women and ethnic minorities portrayed in stereotypical ways, those presentations influence the way they think about and judge individuals from those groups. That is, biased portrayals perpetuate stereotyping.The effect of biased portrayals on individuals thoughts appeared in a study (Murphy, 1998) in which participants read a fake autobiography about an African American man who was aggressive, lazy, unintelligent, and criminalthe most prominent of the negative characteristics associated with this ethnic group. By presenting this stereotypical information, the participants were primed to believe negative things about African Americans, and this priming exerted an effect. In a later survey, the same participants judged that the events that happened to Rodney King (receiving a beating from police) and Magic Johnson (being infected with HIV) were situations that they had brought on themselves. Participants who read neutral or counterstereotypical stories made significantly different judgments. Therefore, negative stereotypes in the media influenced judgments in subtle ways. Another view of the power of television (and other media) stereotyping is through its representation of various groups (Harwood & Anderson, 2002). This position holds that the way ethnic groups, women, children, and older people appear in the media reflects their power and vitality in society. Groups that are minimized, distorted, or marginalized are at risk because these portrayals make the groups seem less significant than they really are. Thus, media content is important not only for the power that it exerts on individuals views but also for how it reflects and shapes cultural values. Concerning gender stereotypes on television, there is bad news and good news. The bad news is that stereotypical portrayals of women and ethnic minorities abound on television, and these presentations have the power to do harm. Regardless of peoples knowledge that its only on television, these messages are persuasive and powerful (Murphy, 1998). The good news is that the media can also work to counteract stereotyping. Commercials and programming that present counterstereotypical information can counteract stereotypes. These presentations can offer models who behave in ways contrary to stereotypes and open behavioral possibilities (Browne, 1998). Therefore, the media tend to perpetuate negative stereotypes, but changes in portrayals could exert a very different, positive influence.
The stereotype for men seems to be more stable, and men may be the victims of more stringent stereotyping than women. College students who described their views of women and men applied more stereotypical terms to men than to women (Hort, Fagot, & Leinbach, 1990). For both physical and social characteristics, the masculine stereotype was more extreme than the feminine. In addition, men are the targets of some negative attitudes. Assessments of womens attitudes toward men have revealed that women hold ambivalent (Glick & Fiske, 1999) and negative (Stephan, Stephan, Demitrakis, Yamada, & Clason, 2000) attitudes toward men. The ambivalence includes feelings of hostility toward men and their gender role combined with admiration and attraction. The disapproving attitudes originate with womens negative contacts with men more than with the influence of negative stereotypes of men. Indeed, the results of a study (Edmonds & Cahoon, 1993) of evaluations of same- and other-gender individuals showed that women tended to believe that men held higher degrees of bias concerning women than the men expressed. That is, women showed negative stereotyping of men.
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 174
174
TABLE 7.3
Stereotypical Traits of Men and Women Matched to Descriptions from Rosenkrantz et al. (1968)
Men Male Gender Role Identity Component

Give Em Hell
Women Cult of True Womanhood Component

Pious
Stereotypic Traits in Study

Aggressive Not uncomfortable about being aggressive Adventurous Competitive
Stereotypic Traits in Study

Religious
Sturdy Oak
Unemotional Hides emotions Not excitable in a minor crisis Able to separate feelings from ideas
Submissive
Aware of feelings of others Gentle Tactful Quiet
Big Wheel
Dominant Skilled in business Knows the ways of the world Acts as a leader Self-confident Ambitious Worldly
Domestic
Neat in habits Strong need for security
No Sissy Stuff
Never cries Not dependent Direct Thinks men are superior to women Not conceited about appearance
Purity
Does not use harsh language
Source: Based on material from: Sex-Role Stereotypes and Self-Concepts in College Students by P. Rosenkrantz, S. Vogel, H. Bee, I. Broverman, and D. M. Broverman, 1968, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, p. 291.
Some evidence suggests that a process moderates the application of gender stereotypes: Men and women may not apply stereotypes to themselves as strictly as they apply these stereotypes to others. U.S. college students hold stereotypical beliefs about gender, but they have also shown that they are willing to exempt themselves from these stereotypes (Williams & Best, 1990). That is, these students rated themselves as varying from the
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 175
175
The Problem Disappeared

Our car was having some problem, and my wife took it to be repaired, a man said. She called me from the auto repair place, furious with the treatment she had received. The men there were stonewalling herfailing to listen to what she was telling them and treating her as though she couldnt possibly be capable of relating problems concerning an automobile. She was steamed. I went down there, and the problem disappeared. I was a man and apparently privy to the innermost secrets of automobiles. They treated me as though I would understand everything perfectly. Both my wife and I thought it was really absurd. One of my friends was upset that it cost $3.20 to get her shirt dry-cleaned, a woman told me. She asked them why it was so muchthe shirt was a tailored, plain shirt. They told her that womens blouses cost more than mens shirts, regardless of the style, because womens clothes dont fit on the standard machine for pressing and must be hand-pressed. She wondered if that was really true, and she gave the shirt to a male friend to take to the same dry cleaners. The problem apparently disappeared, because they charged him $1.25 for the very same garment. Isnt that beyond stereotyping?
stereotype. Although people hold stereotypical views of men and women, they may make exceptions for themselves, allowing themselves a wider variety of behaviors than the stereotype would permit. By allowing such personal exceptions as routine, people decrease the power of stereotypes to control and restrict their lives. Therefore, some of the positive attitudes about men and negative attitudes about women found in earlier studies seem to show some changes. More recent studies have shown a shift toward greater acceptance of gender role flexibility for women and an increase in positive attitudes toward women. Some studies have indicated that men have now become the object of more severe stereotyping and some negative opinions from women.
Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny

The concepts of male and female are relatively easy for people to understand because these words relate to biological differences understood by everyone except young children. But the concepts of masculine and feminine are much less closely related to biology and thus much more difficult to separate into two nonoverlapping categories: One can be more or less feminine. One cannot be more or less female (Maccoby, 1988, p. 762). Nonetheless, these dimensions seem importantperhaps critically important and psychologists have attempted to conceptualize and measure masculinity and femininity along with other important personality traits. After many years of difficulty with such measurements, the concept of androgynyhaving both masculine and feminine characteristicsappeared as an addition to the conceptual framework. Several techniques now exist for measuring this attribute.
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 176
176
Psychologists attempts to understand and measure masculinity and femininity have a long history but not a great deal of success (Constantinople, 1973; Lewin, 1984a, 1984b). The problems began with the first measures developed, and no measurement technique used since has escaped serious criticism. Lewis Terman (who adapted the Binet intelligence test into the StanfordBinet test) and Catherine Cox Miles constructed the Attitude Interest Analysis Survey, a 456-item test that appeared in 1936 (Lewin, 1984a). This test yielded masculinityfemininity (MF) scores that were increasingly positive in the masculine direction and increasingly negative in the feminine direction. Therefore, this early test conceptualized masculinity and femininity as a single dimension, with strong masculinity lying at one extreme and strong femininity at the other. The test was not valid in any way other than distinguishing men from women, and critics (Lewin, 1984a) thus argued that the test actually measured Victorian concepts of masculinity and femininity rather than the masculinity and femininity of individuals. This test is no longer used, but its existence influenced others to develop measurements of masculinity and femininity. When the Mf scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) appeared in 1940, it soon became the most common measure of masculinity and femininity, largely because of its inclusion in this personality test developed to measure psychological disorders (Lewin, 1984b). This scale was also unidimensional and bipolar, with masculinity and femininity at opposite ends of the scale. The psychologists who developed the MMPI were more interested that their Mf scale was able to measure homosexual tendencies in men than masculinity and femininity in heterosexual men and women. As a result of this interest, their validation procedure included a comparison of the Mf responses of 13 homosexual men to the responses of 54 heterosexual male soldiers. They used the responses of the 13 homosexual men as a standard for femininity, thus defining femininity as the responses of these men. The test makers knew that the scale should not be used as a valid measure of femininity, and they were initially tentative in describing its use for a heterosexual population. But the test was soon extended to thousands of people, and the reservations disappeared. It is rather staggering to realize that the femininity dimension of this popular test was validated on a criterion group of 13 male homosexuals! (Lewin, 1984b, p. 181; emphasis in original). The scale was not even very successful in diagnosing homosexuality in men, and this confusion of masculinityfemininity and sexual orientation posed a problem for understanding both concepts. An alternative means of conceptualizing masculinity and femininity used the terms instrumental and expressive, with mens behaviors considered instrumental and womens behaviors as expressive (Lewin, 1984b). This distinction was based on an analysis of families around the world, with the conclusion that men occupy the role of autonomous- and achievement-oriented leaders, whereas women provide nurturance and support. This terminology has become important to those who have attempted to reconceptualize and measure psychological masculinity and femininity. Despite the problems with a unidimensional measure of masculinityfemininity and the limited success with identifying homosexuals with these scales, this approach to the measure of masculinity and femininity was the most common until the 1970s. When theorists realized that the dimensions of masculinity and femi-
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 177
177
ninity were separate from sexual orientation, the measurements of both changed, helping to clarify both areas. In 1974, Sandra Bem published a different approach to the measurement of masculinity and femininity by adding the concept of androgyny. She proposed that some people have characteristics associated with both masculinity and femininity; that is, some people are androgynous. The androgyny concept requires both masculinity and femininity in combination, so it is incompatible with a unidimensional view of masculinityfemininity. Instead, Bem constructed two scales to capture her concept of androgyny. Her test, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), included one scale to measure masculinity and another to assess femininity. Figure 7.3 illustrates the difference between the traditional unidimensional approach to personality measurement and Bems two-dimensional approach. People who take the BSRI respond to 60 characteristics by rating how well each of these characteristics applies to them on a 7-point scale ranging from Always or almost always true to Never or almost never true. Of the 60 items, 20 represent cultural stereotypes of masculinity (ambitious, independent, competitive), 20 represent femininity (gentle, warm, understanding), and 20 are filler items. Scores on the masculinity and femininity scales yield four different possibilities: masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated. People who score high on the masculinity scale and low on the femininity scale would be classified masculine, whereas people who score high on the femininity scale and low on the masculinity scale would be considered feminine. These people not only accept cultural stereotypes of masculinity or femininity, but they also reject the other role. Thus, such individuals fit the stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity, classifications similar to those obtained on other masculinity/femininity tests. Bem labeled those people who score high on both scales androgynous and those who score low on both scales undifferentiated, classifications that do not appear in traditional tests of masculinityfemininity. Androgynous people evaluate themselves as having many
Unidimensional Approach Masculinity Femininity
Two-Dimensional Approach Masculinity Low Femininity Low High High
FIGURE 7.3 Two Approaches to the Measurement of Feminity and Masculinity
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 178
178
of the characteristics that our culture associates with men and women, whereas those people who are undifferentiated report few traits of either gender. The concept of androgyny experienced a rapid growth in popularity. Another test, the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974), soon appeared to overcome problems with the BSRI (see Spence & Helmreich, 1978). The PAQ also identified people as masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated; both tests have undergone revisions and continued in use. Researchers interested in measuring masculinity or femininity usually choose the BSRI or the PAQ. Not all researchers accept that the concept of androgyny offers improvements. Critics contend that tests that include measures of androgyny have provided no revolutionary reconceptualization of the measurement of masculinity and femininity (Lewin, 1984b). Indeed, many researchers now refer to scores on these two scales in terms of instrumentality and expressiveness, rather than masculinity and femininity. Janet Spence (1985; Spence & Buckner, 2000), one of the developers of the PAQ, has acknowledged the weaknesses of this conceptualization of masculinity and femininity and now uses the terms instrumental and expressive to describe the traits that such tests measure. Some researchers have adopted David Bakans (1966) terminology of agentic to refer to the assertive, controlling tendencies that are associated with men, and the term communal to refer to the concern with the welfare of others associated with women. Any change in terminology fails to solve the underlying problem of assessment of masculinity and femininity. Spence discussed the conceptual inadequacies of psychologys measurements of masculinity and femininity and proposed that gender identity is multifactorial and complex (Spence & Buckner, 2000). Thus, none of the existent tests provide adequate assessments of these constructs. Other research (Ricciardelli & Williams, 1995; Woodhill & Samuels, 2003) has tested an alternative conceptualization that involves positive and negative dimensions for masculinity, femininity, and androgyny. The PAQ contains only positive aspects of masculinity and femininity, and the BSRI includes mostly positive aspects of both but has some examples of negative femininity. Table 7.4 gives examples of the four categories of positive and negative masculinity and femininity. Positive and negative androgyny consist of combinations of the positive and negative traits from both. Research that has shown positive effects associated with androgyny may be biased by the consideration of only those positive aspects. Research into the concept of negative and positive androgyny (Woodhill & Samuels, 2003) indicated that the separation of positive and negative aspects of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny was a useful addition. This study measured positive and negative aspects of all three orientations and found that people with positive androgyny showed better mental health and well-being than all other groups, but those with positive masculinity and positive femininity were only slightly less so. The presence of negative masculinity, femininity, or androgyny was less conducive to health and well-being, especially negative masculinity. Although the terms masculinity and femininity are meaningful to most people, psychologists have not yet managed to measure them in theoretically meaningful and valid ways. Problems exist both in the measurement of masculinity and femininity as well as in the concept of androgyny (Constantinople, 1973; Lewin, 1984b; Woodhill & Samuels, 2003). In answering the question, Are MF tests satisfactory? [The answer is] No. There is no evidence that the MF tests of the last sixty years provide a valid measure of the rel-
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 179
179
Examples of Positive and Negative Femininity and Masculinity

TABLE 7.4
Femininity Positive
Patient Sensitive Devoted Responsible Appreciative
Masculinity Positive
Strong Confident Firm Forceful Carefree
Negative
Timid Weak Needs approval Dependent Nervous
Negative
Aggressive Bossy Sarcastic Rude Feels superior
Source: From Desirable and Undesirable Gender Traits in Three Behavioral Domains, by Lina A. Ricciardelli & Robert J. Williams, 1995, Sex Roles, 33, pp. 637655.
ative femininity of women or the relative masculinity of men (Lewin, 1984b, p. 198). Instead, these tests measure our societys conceptualization of what women and men should be by using values that date from the Victorian era, although research indicates that society and self-concepts of masculinity and femininity are changing. The MF tests purport to measure masculinity and femininity, but actually measure gender stereotypes rather than personality characteristics. The tests that include the concept of androgyny offer some improvement but do not solve the problem.
Considering Diversity
Gender stereotypes affect how women and men think of themselves and how they evaluate their own behaviors as well as the behaviors of others. Although every individual belongs to at least one sexual, racial, and social class category simultaneously, such categories do not have an equal social meaning (Unger, 1995, p. 427). How do these factors interact to form the basis for stereotypical categories? Do cultures around the world make similar distinctions between what is considered masculine and feminine? Do other cultures stereotype gender-related behaviors, and are these stereotypes similar to those in North America? Research aimed at answering these questions can be divided into attempts to compare masculinity and femininity in various ethnic and cultural groups in North America and studies that explore gender stereotypes around the world.
Cross-Cultural Assessments of Masculinity and Femininity

Results from studies using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) have suggested that the conceptualizations of masculinity and femininity that are the basis for this test are culturally
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 180
180
specific to the United States and to White people. As a reflection of stereotypes of femininity and masculinity, the test remains valid for many groups (Harris, 1994; Konrad & Harris, 2002), but for other groups in the United States and for people in other countries, concepts of masculinity and femininity vary to the extent that the BSRI is not applicable. Research with Hispanic Americans (Harris, 1994; Sugihara & Warner, 1999), African Americans (Harris, 1994; Konrad & Harris, 2002), and Native American women (Portman, 2001) indicated that women, men, or both failed to match the norms for scoring the BSRI that were derived from Stanford students in 1978. These studies did not indicate that any ethnic group lacked gender-related identity or stereotypes but that the traits associated with masculinity and femininity varied among cultures. In general, studies with the BSRI indicate fewer diversions from the norm sample when testing White participants, but various ethnic groups within the United States have somewhat different gender stereotypes than Whites do. Indeed, the current version of the BSRI includes norms for interpreting the results for Hispanic Americans and African Americans (Bem, 1981b). The discrepancies for ethnic groups within the United States lead to predictions of even more problems in administering the BSRI to people in other countries. One study comparing Chinese and U.S. college students (Zhang, Norvilitis, & Jin, 2001) encountered validity problems with the Chinese students. The researchers speculated that the Chinese concepts of masculinity and femininity are more polarized in the United States than in China, leading to difficulties in placing Chinese students in the same categories of femininity and masculinity with Americans students. Thus, the BSRI may measure a reflection of gender stereotypes for some groups in the United States, but conceptualizations of masculinity and femininity vary with ethnicity and geography.
Gender Stereotypes across Cultures

An attempt to understand the development of gender differences across many cultures has led to several large cross-cultural studies of the development of social and gender-related behaviors. One such study (Whiting & Edwards, 1988) included children from 12 different communities in Kenya, Liberia, India, the Philippines, Okinawa, Mexico, and the United States who were studied to better understand the development of gender in various regions of the world. Some differences appeared in the treatment and subsequent behavior of boys and girls, but many similarities also emerged in the types of interactions children experienced. The analysis showed that age was more important than gender in predicting the experiences of children in these various cultures, but the definition of chores and the freedom to roam and be independent tended to show large gender differences that were common to many cultures. Another cross-cultural investigation of gender stereotypes (Williams & Best, 1990) took place in 30 different countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. College students in these countries rated a list of 300 adjectives according to the extent to which each was more frequently associated with men or women. The goal was to study the associations that people in different cultures make about women and men and to look for female and male stereotypes.
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 181
Some Things Are Different There

I think of femininity more in terms of what a woman wears than anything else, a young man told me. He had grown up on an island in the Mediterranean, lived in Paris for two years, and now lives in the United States. He sees some differences in what is considered feminine and masculine in the three cultures he has known. Where I grew up, there was very little sexual activity among teenagers; it was a very conservative culture, and adolescent sexuality was strictly discouraged. The girls didnt dress in any way that was sexual, so they didnt seem very feminine to me. I guess I would consider some of them more feminine than others, probably in the same way that a person in the U.S. would: Small and dainty girls were more feminine. So I dont see any differences there. In Paris, nothing was hiddenthings were openly sexual. The U.S. is a very sexualized culture, but there are differences. For example, kinds of clothing that people wore in Paris were different from in the U.S., and those differences related to femininity. Wearing jeans and tennis shoes would be considered very unfeminine rather than just another way to dress. I remember one girl in my student group who often wore tennis shoes, jeans, and a big sweater, and she was considered very unfeminine. Not that her way of dressing kept her from being pretty or attractive, but she didnt seem feminine. I guess I would say that Paris was less casual, and the women seemed more feminine than in the U.S. or in the Mediterranean. There were also some differences in what was considered masculine. At home, men tend to be small, so masculinity is not determined by size but more by behavior. Even men who are 54 or 56 can be macho, depending on what they do. Gangsters are very masculine, and so are those who are involved in politics, especially radical politics. The communists are considered the most masculinelots of testosterone there. Men can demonstrate their masculinity by drinkingit has to be liquor and straight, without iceand by smoking unfiltered cigarettes. Also, women who drink or smoke are considered masculine. So masculinity is a matter of what you do in the Mediterranean, not how you look except the gangsters always have a three-day growth of beard. One of the differences in what is considered masculine involves bodybuilding and weight lifting. Men in the Mediterranean and in Paris just didnt do anything like that. They wouldnt consider bodybuilding masculine; it would be considered odd rather than a way to demonstrate masculinity. If they exercise, its oriented more toward fitness than bodybuilding, so that seems very American to me. Political activism is masculine where I come from, whether men or women are involved. As I said, the communist radicals are considered very macho, and women who become involved in politics or become lawyers are considered masculine. As career opportunities increase for women, this may change, but now, women lose their femininity when they gain power through legal or political careerseven more than in the U.S. Also, on the island where I grew up, there was a status for women that I havent seen anywhere else. Postmenopausal women lose their sexuality but they gain power and can become very influential in the community. They are considered almost neuter in terms of sexuality, so they are not feminine at all, but these women can have a lot of power, whereas younger women do not. As long as a woman is young and unmarried or married, she has almost no voice in the community, but these older women can make a transition to a position of respect and power. The only men who lose their sexuality in a similar way are artists, who are not considered feminine but almost neutral. Being an artist is well accepted and doesnt really carry any connotations of femininity, unlike homosexuality, which is strongly prohibited. It is a conservative culture, and homosexual activity is not tolerated at allunlike Paris, where gay men and lesbians are very open about their sexuality. The U.S. seems to be the worst of both cultures in that respect; homosexuality is fairly open but poorly tolerated. That seems like a bad combination to me. As far as masculinity and femininity and homosexuality are concerned, I cant see any relationship. I know I cant tell who is homosexual by how masculine the men seem or how feminine the women seem. So sexual orientation does not seem to coincide with these characteristics to me.
181
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 182
182
The results revealed more similarities than differences in these gender stereotypes. Six adjectives were associated with males in all of the culturesadventurous, dominant, forceful, independent, masculine, and strongand three adjectives were identified with females in all culturessentimental, submissive, and superstitious. In addition, a wide list of adjectives appeared as male-associated or female-associated in a large majority of the cultures, and only a few adjectives were male-associated in one culture and female-associated in another. These findings furnish evidence for similarities in gender stereotypes across cultures, but the similarities were far short of being universal. A reanalysis of some of these data (Williams, Satterwhite, & Best, 1999) in terms of the Five Factor Model of personality revealed even more similarities across cultures than the original analysis. Using averages for the 25 countries, differences in gender stereotypes appeared in all five factors. Participants scored the male stereotype higher in Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience and placed the female stereotype higher on Agreeableness. Not all countries adhered to this pattern, and individuals within the countries did not necessarily believe they fit the stereotypes. However, the beliefs about the characteristics of men and women showed many similarities across a variety of cultures. Despite similarities in many aspects of gender stereotypes, not all cultures hold the same views of what traits, characteristics, and patterns of behavior men and women should exhibit. One cross-cultural review (Gibbons, Hamby, & Dennis, 1997) found that no one gender distinction applied to all cultures. Japan was one of the cultures that showed a different pattern of gender stereotypes than many others (Williams & Best, 1990; Williams et al., 1999). Research on gender roles in Japan (Sugihara & Katsurada, 2002) showed that the characteristics that differentiate women and men in the United States, such as independent, assertive, and self-reliant, do not do so in Japan. Indeed, these characteristics are not considered desirable for either Japanese women or men. As Richard Nisbett (2003) discussed, Asian culture promotes the development of strong family ties and obligations, making conformity and obedience valued traits for everyone. In the United States and Europe, these characteristics would be considered feminine, but in Japan, they are not tied to either gender. In China, the ideal man is a warrior but also a cook, teacher, artist, and musician (Chia, Moore, Lam, Chuang, & Cheng, 1994). In the United States, some of these roles are associated more with women than with men. People in both Japan (Sugihara & Katsurada, 2002) and China (Hong, Veach, & Lawrenz, 2003) exhibit gender stereotyping, but the contents of the gender stereotypes show some variations among cultures because different societies hold varying views of what women and men should be. Going beyond variation in specific gender-related characteristics, some scholars have asked questions concerning how gender stereotyping creates gender-related attitudes that are common over many cultures. The prevalence of male dominance has prompted a broader question: Are men dominant and women subordinate in all cultures? Is this pattern universal and thus the basis for much of gender stereotyping? The answer from anthropology to the question of universal male dominance is no (Bonvillain, 1998; Salzman, 1999). Some societies have included equal access to resources and power for both women and men. Egalitarian cultures tend to be simple, pastoral soci-
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 183
183
eties rather than complex, industrialized cultures. Many more societies have placed men than women in positions of power and control; few have enacted egalitarian arrangements. The reasons for this dominance are debatable, but some speculations involve mens tendency to a social dominance orientation versus womens greater emphasis on forming relationships (Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994). Another view is based on the conflicts that come from women and men living in maledominated societies that depend on and value women. This situation sets up attitudes that are sexist yet still include positive components. Peter Glick, Susan Fiske, and their colleagues (2000) have delineated the concepts of benevolent and hostile sexism, which relate to the stereotypically positive (warm, nurturing) and negative (incompetent, need to be cared for) characteristics of women. These researchers demonstrated the implications of these two components of gender stereotypes by testing over 15,000 people in 19 countries around the world to determine the relationship between hostile and benevolent sexism. They found that, in every one of the 19 nations, a positive relationship appeared between these two dimensions. That is, higher hostile sexism scores were related to higher benevolent sexism scores. They explained the connection as a result of the relationships between men and women in male-dominated cultures, which create both womens subordination and their value as sexual and domestic companions and caregivers. For such systems to remain stable, both women and men must hold attitudes that support the system, and these ideologies form a complementary system that perpetuates societies in which men dominate. Their results confirmed the prediction that both men and women hold these attitudes. Although women were more likely than men to reject hostile sexism, both women and men endorsed both beliefs. Furthermore, the degree of mens hostile sexism predicted the level of gender inequality in these societies. As the Glick et al. (2000) results showed, women often hold more egalitarian views of women and womens roles than men endorse, but even this difference is not universal. No differences in attitudes toward women appeared in a study (Gibbons et al., 1997) of people in Malaysia or Pakistan, and men in Brazil expressed more liberal views of women than women did. The distinction between traditional beliefs and beliefs concerning equal opportunity and equal power might apply to all cultures, but the specifics of what constitutes traditionality vary. The division of activities and behaviors into male and female domains is universal, without worldwide agreement about what those activities and characteristics are. Such divisions of activities, however, form the basis for gender roles and furnish the potential for gender stereotyping.
Summary
The term gender role refers to the activities or behaviors typically associated with women or men, whereas gender stereotype refers to the beliefs associated with the characteristics and personalities appropriate to men and women. Current stereotypes of women and men have been influenced by historical views of women and men. The Cult of True Womanhood that arose during Victorian times held that women should be pious, pure, submissive, and domestic. For men, several models of masculinity show gender role stereotypes. One of these is the Male Gender Role
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 184
184
Identity, which holds that to be successful as men, males must identify with the elements of that role, including the need to avoid all feminine activities and interests, have an achievement orientation, suppress emotions, and be aggressive and assertive. Gender stereotyping begins early in development and results in children holding rigid rules for gender-related behavior. Stereotyping is maintained by the illusion that more activities and characteristics are associated with gender than actually are. Children become flexible in applying gender rules as they approach adolescence, allowing themselves more exceptions for individual variation. The tendency to make exceptions increases with development toward adulthood. During childhood, stereotyping may serve to simplify cognitive processing and allow children to make easier decisions and judgments, but adults do not require such simplification. Nevertheless, stereotyping continues, and prejudice and discrimination are frequent consequences. Gender stereotypes have four different aspectsphysical characteristics, traits, behaviors, and occupations. Each aspect may vary independently, but people make judgments about one based on information about another, to form an interdependent network of associations. People use this network of information in making deductions about gender-related characteristics.
The concepts of masculinity and femininity have a long history in the field of psychology as personality traits measured by various psychological tests. The first such test was the Attitude Interest Analysis Survey, which conceptualized masculinity and femininity as opposite poles of one continuum. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory still uses this unidimensional approach. A more recent approach to the measurement of masculinity and femininity includes the concept of androgyny. Several tests have adopted this strategy, including the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. These tests include separate scales for masculinity and femininity, allowing classification of people as not only masculine or feminine but also as androgynous. However, some critics have argued that none of the personality tests that purport to measure masculinity and femininity do so. At present, the underlying concepts of masculinity and femininity remain elusive. Cross-cultural research on gender roles and gender stereotyping indicates that all cultures delegate different roles to men and women, but what traits are associated with each show some cultural variation. Gender stereotypes have more similarities than differences across cultures, with the male stereotype fitting the instrumental, or agentic, model and the female stereotype fitting the expressive, or communal, model.
Glossary
androgyny a blending of masculinity and femininity, in which the desirable characteristics associated with both men and women are combined within individuals. gender stereotype the beliefs about the characteristics associated with, and the activities appropriate to, men or women. illusory correlation the incorrect belief that two events vary together, or the perception that the relationship is strong when little or no actual relationship exists. stereotype threat a phenomenon that occurs in situations in which the presence of negative stereotypes affect the performance of those to whom the stereotype applies. validation the process of demonstrating that a psychological test measures what it claims to measure; the procedure that demonstrates the accuracy of a test.
ch07.qxd
2/26/2004 9:35 AM
Page 185
185
Suggested Readings
Good, Glenn E.; & Sherrod, Nancy B. (2001). The psychology of men and masculinity: Research status and future directions. In Rhoda Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 201214). New York: Wiley. Good and Sherrod examine the models of masculinity and discuss its components, along with research that supports the existence of each. In addition, they consider the implications of masculinity in this and other cultures. Kite, Mary E. (2001). Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do we want women and men to be? In Rhoda Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 215227). New York: Wiley. Kite reviews gender belief systems, gender stereotypes and their measurement, and what men and women think of men and women. In addition, she carefully considers the cost of violating these gender stereotypes. Lewin, Miriam. (1984). Rather worse than folly? Psychology measures femininity and masculinity: 1. From Terman and Miles to the Guilfords (pp. 155178); and Psychology measures femininity and masculinity: 2. From 13 gay men to the instrumentalexpressive distinction (pp. 179204). In Miriam Lewin (Ed.), In the shadow of the past: Psychology portrays the sexes. New York: Columbia University Press. Although Lewins two articles are not recent, they furnish a critical review of attempts in the field of psychology to measure masculinity and femininity. She points out the difficulties and the mistakes, including conceptualizing femininity as the responses of 13 gay men.

Brannon ch07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brannon ch07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brannon ch07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ch07.

Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

The Stereotype Trap

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

From Gender Roles to Gender Stereotypes

Stereotypes of Women and Men

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Elements of Stereotyping of Women and Men

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Stages of Gender Stereotype Development

Status of Gender Stereotypes

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

The Process and Implications of Stereotyping

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Admiration Admired leaders Competence

Envy Business executives Feminists

Contempt People in prison

Perceptions of Women and Men

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

FIGURE 7.2 Components of Deaux and Lewiss Model of Gender Stereotyping

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Just Another Walking Stereotype

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

White Men Are in Charge

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Biased Media Portrayals Perpetuate Stereotyping

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Men Male Gender Role Identity Component

Women Cult of True Womanhood Component

Stereotypic Traits in Study

Stereotypic Traits in Study

Aware of feelings of others Gentle Tactful Quiet

Neat in habits Strong need for security

Does not use harsh language

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

The Problem Disappeared

Masculinity, Femininity, and Androgyny

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Unidimensional Approach Masculinity Femininity

Two-Dimensional Approach Masculinity Low Femininity Low High High

FIGURE 7.3 Two Approaches to the Measurement of Feminity and Masculinity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Examples of Positive and Negative Femininity and Masculinity

Cross-Cultural Assessments of Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Gender Stereotypes across Cultures

Some Things Are Different There

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

Chapter 7 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity

You might also like