Although men and women help others, there are systematic gender differences in the type of helping they perform. Consistent with traditional gender roles and stereotypes, men typically help in agentic ways, and women typically help in communal ways. Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Gender Roles Inhibiting Prosociality model predicts that gender stereotypes about gender-inconsistent helping create negative attitudes, restrictive subjective norms, and low self-efficacy that undermine helping intentions, which, in turn, reduce engagement in gender-inconsistent helping contexts. Across three studies (N = 1,355), we find empirical support for the hypothesized model: When asked to imagine engaging in a genderinconsistent (vs. gender-consistent) helping scenario, participants anticipated feeling worse, expected others to judge them more negatively, and reported decreased self-efficacy beliefs, and these factors predicted lower intentions to engage in gender-inconsistent helping. Critically, behavioral intentions explained some of the variance in gender-inconsistent helping during the following month. Internal meta-analyses of the differences between gender-consistent andinconsistent helping on attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions across studies revealed small-to-medium average effect sizes (ds = 0.16 -0.47). These results have the potential to inform interventions aimed at increasing helping in all its forms.
Two experiments ( N = 449; 246 men, 198 women) examined how political identity moderates appreciation of disparagement humor that violates different moral foundations described in moral foundations theory. In Experiment 1, liberals evaluated memes violating the individualizing moral foundations as more offensive and less funny than conservatives, whereas conservatives rated memes violating the binding moral foundations as more offensive and less funny than liberals. Moreover, conservatives judged the memes across all experimental conditions more favorably than liberals because they more strongly endorse cavalier humor beliefs. Experiment 2 examined the mediating role of perceived personal moral violations. Specifically, liberals evaluate humor violating the individualizing foundations as more offensive than conservatives because they see it as a greater personal moral violation. Similarly, conservatives judged humor violating the binding foundations as more offensive compared to liberals because they see it as a greater personal moral violation.
Politicians are tasked with both holding expertise and being relatable to the general population they are representing. Accordingly, politicians strategize their communication style to achieve both aims. One strategy they implement is using humor in their communication to constituents. But is this an effective strategy across humor styles? Does political affiliation or gender of the politician impact these effects? We examine these questions in an online experiment with Chilean subjects (N = 799) using tweets from fictitious politicians, finding evidence that both serious and humorous aggressive communication had negative outcomes on social perception of the politician compared to affiliative and self-deprecating communication. Both serious and humorous affiliative communication has a positive outcome on social perceptions compared to aggressive and most self-deprecating communications. Also, self-deprecating humor was a moderately effective communication strategy, and political affiliation did not have an effect on perceptions of likability when affiliative humor was used. Finally, we did not find evidence of differences in social perceptions based on the gender of the politician.
We introduce the Social Media Sexist Content (SMSC) database, an open-access online stimulus set consisting of 382 social media content items and 221 comments related to the content. The content items include 90 sexist posts and 292 neutral posts. The comment items include 75 sexist comments along with 238 neutral comments. The database consists of a broad range of topics including lifestyle, memes, and school posts. All posts were anonymized after being retrieved from publicly available sources. All content and comments were rated across two domains: degree of sexism and emotional reaction to the post. In terms of sexism, the posts were rated along three dimensions of gender bias: Hostile Sexism, Benevolent Sexism, and Objectification. Participants also provided their emotional reactions to the posts in terms of feeling Ashamed, Insecure, and/or Angry. Data were collected online in two separate studies: one rating the content and the other rating the comments. The sexism and emotion ratings were highly reliable and showed the posts displayed either sexism or neutral content. The SMSC database is beneficial to researchers because it offers updated social media content for research use online and in the lab. The database affords researchers the ability to explore stimuli either by content or by ratings, and the database is free to use for research purposes. The SMSC is available for download from hannahbuie.com.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.