Psychological differences between women and men, far from being invariant as a biological explanation would suggest, fluctuate in magnitude across cultures. Moreover, contrary to the implications of some theoretical perspectives, gender differences in personality, values, and emotions are not smaller, but larger, in American and European cultures, in which greater progress has been made toward gender equality. This research on gender differences in self-construals involving 950 participants from 5 nations/cultures (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United States, and Malaysia) illustrates how variations in social comparison processes across cultures can explain why gender differences are stronger in Western cultures. Gender differences in the self are a product of self-stereotyping, which occurs when between-gender social comparisons are made. These social comparisons are more likely, and exert a greater impact, in Western nations. Both correlational and experimental evidence supports this explanation.

We argue that the preference for the merit principle is a separate construct from hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies (i.e., system justification beliefs, prejudice, social dominance orientation), including descriptive beliefs that meritocracy currently exists in society. Moreover, we hypothesized that prescriptive beliefs about merit should have a stronger influence on reactions to the status quo when hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies are weak (vs. strong). In 4 studies, participants' preference for the merit principle and hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies were assessed; later, the participants evaluated organizational selection practices that support or challenge the status quo. Participants' prescriptive and descriptive beliefs about merit were separate constructs; only the latter predicted other hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. In addition, as hypothesized, among participants who weakly endorsed hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies, the stronger their preference for the merit principle, the more they opposed selection practices that were perceived to be merit violating but the more they supported practices that were perceived to be merit restoring. In contrast, those who strongly endorsed hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies were always motivated to support the status quo, regardless of their preference for the merit principle.

No abstract

African Americans and other ethnic minorities are severely underrepresented in both graduate education and among the professoriate in ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB). In the present research, we take a social psychological approach to studying inclusion by examining interrelationships among challenges to inclusion, the sense of belonging, and interest in pursuing graduate education in EEB. We conducted a survey of African American (N = 360), Latino/a/Hispanic (N = 313), White (N = 709), and Asian/Asian American (N = 524) college undergraduates majoring in science, technology, engineering, and math fields and used the results to test several interrelated hypotheses derived from our theoretical model. Compared to Whites, ethnic minorities were more likely to experience challenges to inclusion in EEB (e.g., less exposure to ecology, fewer same-race role models, discomfort in outdoor environments). Challenges to inclusion were associated with a decreased sense of belonging in EEB educational contexts. Finally, experiencing a low sense of belonging in EEB educational contexts was associated with lower interest in pursuing graduate education in EEB. Sense of belonging in EEB was especially low among African Americans relative to Whites. We discuss the implications of the study results for educational interventions.

The authors extend recent research concerning the social costs of claiming discrimination by examining men's and women's responses to in-group and out-group targets who either blamed a failing grade on discrimination or answer quality. Although participants generally responded more negatively to targets who blamed discrimination, rather than answer quality, dislike was greatest and gender group identification was lowest when participants evaluated an in-group target. Moreover, an in-group target who claimed discrimination was perceived as avoiding personal responsibility for outcomes to a greater extent than was a similar out-group target. Perceptions that the target avoided outcome responsibility by claiming discrimination were shown to mediate the relationship between attribution type and dislike of the in-group target. The authors discuss their results in terms of intragroup processes and suggest that social costs may especially accrue for in-group members when claiming discrimination has implications for the in-group's social identity.