Are Women Evaluated More Favorably Than Men?: An Analysis of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Emotions

Eagly, Alice H.; Mladinic, Antonio; Otto, Stacey

doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00792.x

Cited by 258 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hostile sexism refers to an openly antagonistic attitude toward women, whereas benevolent sexism refers to a subjectively positive orientation toward women that casts Òwomen as wonderful but fragile creatures who ought to be protected and provided for by menÓ (Glick et al, 2004, p. 715; see also Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1991). Both types of sexism convey information about the division of structural power between the sexes by portraying women as weaker than men and more suitable for traditional domestic roles.…”

Section: Self-objectification and Sexist Ideologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Objects and Actions: Situating Self-Objectification in a System Justification Context

Calogero

2013

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating objectification and system justification perspectives, this chapter offers a conception of self-objectification as a dominant cultural lens through which women come to view themselves that garners their compliance in the sexist status quo. This chapter begins with an overview of objectification theory (Fredrickson and Roberts 1997) and system justification theory (Jost and Banaji, 1994). Then, an integration of the two perspectives is presented that situates self-objectification in a system justification context, extending the scope of impact of self-objectification beyond the domains of body image and mental health. Empirical evidence is reviewed to demonstrate the direct and indirect ways that self-objectification works as a systemjustifying device for many women. For example, as a self-perspective that increases in response to benevolently sexist ideology or as a potential obstacle to taking collective action on behalf of women, self-objectification functions as a motivational and ideological force that rationalizes and legitimizes a gender role hierarchy. This developing program of research attempts to deepen our understanding of self-objectification and the broader system-level implications of this self-perspective. The chapter concludes with a discussion of potential next steps and a call for continued scientific inquiry into the broader functions of self-objectification.

show abstract

Section: Self-objectification and Sexist Ideologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Objects and Actions: Situating Self-Objectification in a System Justification Context

Calogero

2013

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This domain appeared to be broadly suitable for this research question given society's mercurial attitudes towards women. Specifically, previous research has shown that there is a general tendency for women to be evaluated more positively than men (e.g., as the more helpful, kind and empathic gender: see Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1991). However, research elsewhere has demonstrated that women are, simultaneously, all too often stereotyped as being ill-suited to leadership in occupational settings (see Eagly & Karau, 2002 for review).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The IRAP Is Nonrelative but not Acontextual: Changes to the Contrast Category Influence Men’s Dehumanization of Women

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) is frequently employed over other measures of so-called implicit attitudes because it produces four independent and "non-relative" bias scores, thereby providing greater clarity around what drives an effect. Indeed, studies have sometimes emphasized the procedural separation of the four trial-types by choosing to report only the results of a single, theoretically meaningful trial-type. However, no research to date has examined the degree to which performance on a given trial-type is impacted upon by other stimulus categories employed within the task. The current study examined the extent to which response biases toward "women" are influenced by two different contrast categories: "men" versus "inanimate objects". Results indicated that greater dehumanization of women was observed in the context of the latter relative to the former category. The findings highlight that the IRAP may be described as a non-relative, but not a-contextual, measure of brief and immediate relational responses.Keywords: Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure, Relational Frame Theory, dehumanization of women IRAP IS NON-RELATIVE BUT NOT A-CONTEXTUAL 3The IRAP is non-relative but not a-contextual: Changes to the contrast category influence men's dehumanization of women The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) was created as a way to assess natural verbal relations "on the fly" (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Stewart, & Boles, 2010).More specifically, the IRAP was designed to capture arbitrarily applicable relational responding, which is posited by Relational Frame Theory (RFT) to account for complex human behavior such as language and higher cognition (see Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001; Hughes & Barnes-Holmes, 2016 for detailed treatments). The IRAP has now been employed in a wide range of contexts, including the assessment of such relational responding in domains of both clinical (see Vahey, Nicholson, & Barnes-Holmes, 2015 for meta-analysis) and social relevance (e.g., Drake et al., 2015;Rönspies et al., 2015), as well as within basic science contexts (e.g., Bortoloti & de Rose, 2012;Hughes, 2012;).Due to some procedural similarities with other measures such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT: Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), the IRAP is frequently referred to or employed as a measure of so-called "implicit attitudes" (e.g., Hussey & Barnes-Holmes, 2012), a term that was borrowed from cognitive psychology and refers to "automatic" behaviors that are emitted outside of awareness or intentionality, under low volitional control and/or with high cognitive efficiency (see De Houwer & Moors, 2010). However, more recent work has emphasized that such references to the IRAP as a measure of implicit attitudes were heuristic in nature, and has attempted to clarify the relationship between the cognitive and functionalanalytic approaches to such behavioral phenomena (Hughes, Barnes-Holmes, & De Houwer, 2011;Hughes, Barnes-Holmes, & Vahey, 2012; see Barnes-Holmes & Hu...

show abstract

“…Although people generally associate more positive traits (e.g. happy, good) with women compared to men (known as the 'women are wonderful' effect; Eagly, Mladinic & Otto, 1991;Eagly & Mladinic, 1994), this is only true for status irrelevant characteristics. Women are subject to numerous negative stereotypes in relation to status relevant dimensions which draw the worth of their group into question (Cowan & Ullman, 2006) and justify their lower status position (e.g.…”

Section: Collective Self-esteem and Identity Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although people generally associate more positive traits with women compared to men (known as the 'women are wonderful' effect; Eagly, Mladinic & Otto, 1991;Eagly & Mladinic, 1994), women are the targets of numerous negative stereotypes which draw the worth of their group into question and justify their lower status position (e.g. women are emotional; Jones, Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, & Scott, 1984).…”

Section: Internalisation Of Sexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although people generally associate more positive traits with women compared to men (the 'women are wonderful' effect; Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1991;Eagly & Mladinic, 1994), women are negatively stereotyped in relation to status relevant dimensions which draw the worth of their group into question (e.g. women are emotional; Jones, Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, & Scott, 1984;women are unfit leaders;Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996).…”

Section: Why Collective Threat Might Activate Intra-gender Hostilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why can’t we all just get along? A social psychological examination of women’s intra-gender hostility

Lizzio‐Wilson¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women's intra-gender hostility has been the focus of attention in both the popular media and scholarly literature. However, important gaps still remain in our understanding of the construct validity, causes of, and contextual factors influencing this process. Thus I investigate the following under-explored questions in this thesis: a) is intra-gender hostility a form of conflict unique to women, or are similar processes also evident among men?; b) do the unique identity pressures women face as a lower status group contribute to their intra-gender hostility?; and c) what contextual factors modify women's intra-gender hostility?In Chapter 3, I find that men and women report similar levels of attitudinal intra-gender hostility, indicating that it is not a form of intra-group conflict more commonly faced by women. I also demonstrate that the factor structure of men and women's intra-and inter-gender hostility are distinct, suggesting that intra-gender hostility is a form of intra-group conflict rather than an expression of general negativity. Building on this in Chapter 4, I provide more convincing evidence that women's intra-gender hostility reflects and potentially reinforces their disadvantaged position.Specifically, I demonstrate that women's intra-gender hostility is related to the unique identity pressures they face as a lower status group and factors which reflect and potentially reinforce their disadvantaged position (i.e. sexual competitiveness regarding attractiveness, hostile sexism, private collective self-esteem). In contrast, men's intra-gender hostility was uniquely related to factors which reflect and reinforce their higher status position (i.e. hostility toward men). This suggests that men and women's intra-gender hostility may function in complementary ways to reinforce the gender-related status hierarchy.In Chapter 5, I further investigate how women's unique identity pressures contribute to their intra-gender hostility. I replicate findings from previous research that women who more (versus less) strongly endorse hostile and, to a lesser extent, benevolent sexism, demonstrate greater intra-gender hostility toward non-traditional women. However, I extend these findings by demonstrating that collective threat (the concern that the poor behaviour of an ingroup will be generalised to a negative stereotype of the entire group Cohen & Garcia, 2005); partially explains hostile (but not benevolent) sexists' intra-gender hostility. This provides further evidence that the unique identity pressures women face contribute to their intra-gender hostility, and preliminary evidence to suggest that unique identity pressures related to gender-role appropriate behaviour and maintaining a positive social identity can influence women's attitudes toward and treatment of other women in certain circumstances.Finally in Chapter 6, I investigate the social psychological factors which may contextually activate or attenuate women's intra-gender hostility in the face of social identity threat. I replicate findings fro...

show abstract

Are Women Evaluated More Favorably Than Men?: An Analysis of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Emotions

Cited by 258 publications

References 23 publications

On Objects and Actions: Situating Self-Objectification in a System Justification Context

On Objects and Actions: Situating Self-Objectification in a System Justification Context

The IRAP Is Nonrelative but not Acontextual: Changes to the Contrast Category Influence Men’s Dehumanization of Women

Why can’t we all just get along? A social psychological examination of women’s intra-gender hostility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About