The authors offer a framework for conceptualizing collective identity that aims to clarify and make distinctions among dimensions of identification that have not always been clearly articulated. Elements of collective identification included in this framework are self-categorization, evaluation, importance, attachment and sense of interdependence, social embeddedness, behavioral involvement, and content and meaning. For each element, the authors take note of different labels that have been used to identify what appear to be conceptually equivalent constructs, provide examples of studies that illustrate the concept, and suggest measurement approaches. Further, they discuss the potential links between elements and outcomes and how context moderates these relationships. The authors illustrate the utility of the multidimensional organizing framework by analyzing the different configuration of elements in 4 major theories of identification.

A model that describes conditions influencing the display of gender-related behavior is presented as a supplement to existent models of sex differences. Whereas many previous models stress the importance of distal factors, our model emphasizes the degree to which gender-related behavior is variable, proximally caused, and context dependent. More specifically, we propose that gender-related behaviore are influenced by the expectations of perceivers, self-systems of the target, and situational cues. This model of gender-related behavior builds on theory and data in the areas of (a) expectancy confirmation processes and (b) self-verification and self-presentation strategies. Support for the model is presented, and suggestions are offered for its future development.Are men and women different, and if so, why? These seemingly simple questions have proved remarkably resistant to satisfactory answers, despite a long tradition of attempts. Investigators of some eras have emphasized differences between women and men, whereas those of other eras have argued for the essential similarity of the sexes. For example, in recent years one can observe a minimization of sex differences in the benchmark work of Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) and a reendorsement of sex differences in the subsequent work of Gilligan (1982), Eagly (1987), and others. Proponents of both views have had problems. Those who predict stable sex differences have had trouble accounting for the often limited ability of sex to predict behavior and for a variability that sometimes appears random.The order of authorship for this article was determined alphabetically and hence is arbitrary. The contributions of both authors are equivalent and inseparable.Portions of this article were developed while Kay Deaux was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where support was provided in part by the John D. and Catherine T. McArthur Foundation. Additional support was provided by Grants BNS-8217313 and BNS-8604993 from the National Science Foundation to Kay Deaux.Many people have contributed to our thinking in this article. A preliminary version of the model was presented at the Nags Head Conference on Sex and Gender in May 198S, and we thank the members of that conference for their feedback. The members of the Self, Cognition, and Affect Project at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences provided valuable input and a stimulating context. In addition, we thank the following people for their comments on earlier versions of this article: Richard Ashmore, Nyla Branscombe, Jennifer Crocker, John Darley, Frances Del Boca, Alice Eagly, Russ Fazio, Sam Glucksberg, Tory Higgins, Bill Martin, and Janet Spence.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kay Deaux, who is now at City University of New York, Graduate Center, Box 325, 33 West 42 Street, New York, New York 10036-8099 or to Brenda Major, Department of Psychology, Park Hall, State University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, New York 14260.Those who argue that ...

Various components of gender stereotypes were examined in three studies to determine their interrelationship and their influence relative to gender label. In the first two experiments, male and female college students were given information about gender and either role behaviors or traits and were asked to assess the probability that the stimulus person possessed other gender-related characteristics. In the third experiment, each of four gender stereotype components was presented in a within-subjects design and subjects made judgments about each other component. Results indicate that (a) information about one stereotype component can implicate other components; (b) specific component information may outweigh gender identification; and (c) components differ in their ability to implicate other components of gender stereotypes, with physical appearance playing a dominant role. The significance of these findings in understanding the structure and operation of gender stereotypes is discussed.

Applied will publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also will publish research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Review articles will be considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, decision making, reasoning, information processing, learning, and performance. Settings may be industrial (such as human-computer interface design), academic (such as intelligent computer-aided instruction), or consumer oriented (such as applications of text comprehension theory to the development or evaluation of product instructions).

Beliefs about the characteristics of male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals were assessed to determine the degree to which stereotypes of homosexuals are consistent with the inversion model proposed by Freud (1905) and others, i.e., the assumption that homosexuals are similar to the opposite–sex heterosexual. Results showed that people do subscribe to an implicit inversion theory wherein male homosexuals are believed to be similar to female heterosexuals, and female homosexuals are believed to be similar to male heterosexuals. These results offer additional support for a bipolar model of gender stereotyping, in which masculinity and femininity are assumed to be in opposition.

During the past 30 years, women’s participation in the workforce, in athletics, and in professional education has increased, while men’s activities have been more stable. Have gender stereotypes changed over this time period to reflect the new realities? And, to what extent does gender stereotyping exist today? We address these questions by comparing data collected in the early 1980s to new data collected in 2014. In each study, participants rated the likelihood that a typical man or woman has a set of gendered characteristics (traits, role behaviors, occupations, and physical characteristics). Results indicate that people perceive strong differences between men and women on stereotype components today, as they did in the past. Comparisons between the two time periods show stability of gender stereotypes across all components except female gender roles, which showed a significant increase in gender stereotyping. These results attest to the durability of basic stereotypes about how men and women are perceived to differ, despite changes in the participation and acceptance of women and men in nontraditional domains. Because gender stereotypes are apparently so deeply embedded in our society, those in a position to evaluate women and men, as well as women and men themselves, need to be constantly vigilant to the possible influence of stereotypes on their judgments, choices, and actions. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://pwq.sagepub.com/supplemental

Male and female subjects evaluated the performance of either a male or female stimulus person who was heard to perform in an above-average manner on either a male-or female-related task. Analysis of the attributions made to luck versus skill in explaining the performance of the stimulus person showed that as predicted, performance by a male on a masculine task was more attributed to skill, whereas an equivalent performance by a female on the same task was seen to be more influenced by luck. Contrary to prediction, the reverse did not hold true for performance on a feminine task. Overall, males were seen to be more skillful than females. The utility of an attributional analysis in the study of perceived sex differences was discussed.Investigations of the evaluation of male and female performance in equivalent situations have tended to focus on the ratings made of the performance itself, frequently finding that the male tends to be rated more favorably than the female when the presented evidence is identical. Thus, presenting rather broadly and generally described evidence about the performance of a male or female author (Goldberg, 1968), a male or female painter (Pheterson, Kiesler, & Goldberg, 1971), and a male or female applicant for a study-abroad program (Deaux & Taynor, 1973), the cited authors have found that the male's performance tends to be rated more favorably than the female's. One apparent exception to this depressing regularity was reported by Pheterson et al. (1971) in a condition in which the label winner was attached to the evidence, in this case a painting. Under these conditions, no differences between ratings of male and female artists emerged on measures of competence and artistic future. We might tentatively assume, therefore, that specific information regarding the quality of a performance eliminates sex-linked biases in the evaluation of that performance.

Recent research on sex and gender is analyzed in terms of three major approaches: (a) sex as a subject variable; (b) individual differences in masculinity, femininity, and androgyny; and (c) sex as a social category. Main effect differences of subject sex are found to be surprisingly small in most cases, and the status of androgyny is uncertain, limiting the potential of the first two approaches. The impact of sex as a social category is considerable, but more detailed research is needed. Further advances in understanding gender will depend on more process-oriented approaches that will take into account both subject and social category factors.