Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2017
-
(2017): Judging the gender of the inanimate. Benevolent sexism and gender stereotypes guide impressions of physical objects. In: The British journal of social psychology 56 (3), S. 537-560. DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12198
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12198 Abstract: Within a given culture, sexist ideologies and stereotypes are largely characterized by their prescriptive expectations for the types of social and behavioural domains men and women occupy. The activities that take place within these respective domains, however, frequently involve designed, physical artefacts. This study reports a pair of studies that test whether sexist schemas are capable of guiding not only impressions of men and women as social groups, but also their impressions of the inanimate objects associated with these groups. In Study 1, benevolent sexism was found to predict a greater willingness to classify physical objects as being either highly feminine or highly masculine, even when these objects had a neutral rating by the sample as a whole. In Study 2, stereotypes consistent with legitimizing ideologies (i.e., competence and warmth) predicted rating associated objects in complementary ways, in terms of greater liking of feminine objects but greater presumed competence needed for using masculine objects. These results demonstrate how sexist beliefs and attitudes are capable of bleeding into people's impressions of the physical world.
2015
-
(2015): Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes. Favoring masculine men and feminine women (PSYNDEXshort). In: Social Psychology 46 (4), S. 210-217
Abstract: We investigated how men's masculine identification and ambivalent sexism relate to evaluations of male and female subtypes. Masculine identification correlated with positive attitudes toward male and female types that conform to traditional gender norms (i.e., masculine men, feminine women), but negative attitudes toward feminine men. However, masculine identification was not associated with negative evaluations toward other nontraditional male (stay-at-home fathers, feminist men) or with nontraditional female (masculine women, career women, and feminist women) subtypes. By contrast, hostile sexism consistently predicted negative evaluations of nontraditional female and male types, whereas benevolent sexism predicted positive evaluations of traditional female types. We suggest that masculine identification generally promotes favoritism toward traditional male and (like benevolent sexism) traditional female subtypes, rather than (as hostile sexism does) derogation toward nontraditional subtypes.
-
(2015) : Sexism In: Wright, James D.: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition): Oxford: Elsevier, S. 693-699
Abstract: This article first reviews the historical rise and the developments of psychological research on sexism which led to the differentiation between biological sex and cultural gender, and highlights commonalities between gender relations and other status-based intergroup relations. Old-fashioned, overt and explicit forms of sexism are then distinguished from contemporary, more subtle, and implicit forms. The latter are characterized by ambivalence of hostility and benevolence toward women. The final section discusses major behavioral consequences of the different forms of sexism, emphasizing the harmful impact of benevolence on women's feelings of self-worth and competence, and actual performances.
2004
-
(2004): Tolerance of Sexual Harassment. An Examination of Gender Differences, Ambivalent Sexism, Social Dominance, and Gender Roles. In: Sex Roles 50 (7/8), S. 565-573. DOI: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000023075.32252.fd
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023075.32252.fd Abstract: In this study we examined the effects of gender, gender roles (masculinity and femininity), ambivalent sexism, and social dominance orientation with regard to tolerance of sexual harassment. It was predicted that women would be less tolerant than men of sexual harassment, however, men and women who were tolerant of sexual harassment would share ambivalence and hostility toward women, and they would exhibit higher levels of social dominance and masculinity. Results partially supported the hypotheses. Women were significantly less tolerant of harassment than men were, however, regression analyses showed that ambivalent sexism and hostility toward women accounted for the majority of total variance (35%), followed by gender (5%), social dominance (1%), femininity (0.7%), and nonsexism (0.6%). Masculinity and benevolent sexism were not significant predictors. Results suggest that ambivalence and hostility toward women are much greater predictors of tolerance of sexual harassme nt than is gender alone. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
2001
-
(2001): Ambivalenter Sexismus und die Polarisierung von Geschlechterstereotypen. In: Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 32 (4), S. 235-247. DOI: 10.1024//0044-3514.32.4.235
Abstract: Die Hypothese, dass Geschlechterstereotype in Abhängigkeit vom Ausmaß der Ambivalenz von Einstellungen gegenüber Frauen bzw. Männern unterschiedlich starke Polarisierung aufweisen, wird überprüft. Die insgesamt 191 Studierenden, die am Experiment teilnahmen, hatten zunächst auf einer Reihe von femininen und maskulinen (jeweils positiv oder negativ bewerteten) Merkmalen zwei Subkategorien einzuschätzen, einen traditionellen Frauentyp (Hausfrau) bzw. einen traditionellen Männertyp (Manager) und einen nichttraditionellen Frauentyp (Karrierefrau) bzw. einen nichttraditionellen Männertyp (Softie). Anschließend wurden ihre Einstellungen gegenüber Frauen bzw. Männern gemessen. Maße der innerdimensionalen Ambivalenz (gegensätzliche Einschätzungen auf ein und derselben Merkmalsdimension) und der kreuzdimensionalen Ambivalenz (gegensätzliche Einschätzungen auf zwei verschiedenen Dimensionen) wurden berechnet. Wie erwartet zeigten ambivalente Sexisten im Vergleich mit Nichtsexisten einen höheren Grad an Polarisierung in ihren Beurteilungen der weiblichen bzw. männlichen Subkategorien. Dies betraf sowohl die Polarisierung innerhalb einer gegebenen Dimension (Femininität bzw. Maskulinität) als auch die Polarisierung zwischen den Dimensionen. Ferner hingen Ausmaß und Richtung beider Formen von Polarisierung von der Art der jeweiligen Dimension und der betrachteten Subkategorie ab. Summary
- <<
- <
- 1