The Gendered Brain: Implications of Exposure to Neuroscience Research for Gender Essentialist Beliefs

Şahin, Özlem; Yalçınkaya, Nur Soylu

doi:10.1007/s11199-020-01181-7

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The remainder of the articles reported interventions/factors that were useful in reducing ambivalent sexism in general (both HS and BS, or total score), including exposure to evidence on gender brain similarities (vs. differences; Sahin & Yalcinkaya, 2021), increasing perceived superordinate-group diversity without explicitly drawing attention to gender (Ehrke et al, 2014), greater mindfulness awareness (Gervais & Hoffman, 2013), and incorporating examples in a psychology methods course related to ambivalent sexism (Yoder et al, 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future research should target ambivalent sexism more specifically (rather than targeting sexism or genderrelated constructs in general) because interventions tend to be more effective if they are tailored to the specific features of BS and HS (see J. C. Becker et al, 2014), which are somewhat different from those of other similar constructs (McHugh & Frieze, 1997). Other methodological limitations that have been identified and may be overcome in future research were demand characteristics (e.g., J. C. Kilmartin et al, 2008;Sahin & Yalcinkaya, 2021) and selection bias (e.g., Case, 2007;Katz et al, 2004;Livosky et al, 2011).…”

Section: Interventions To Reduce Ambivalent Sexism (N Articles = 17)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles.

Bareket,

Fiske

2023

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996), the coexistence of gendered power differences and mutual interdependence creates two apparently opposing but complementary sexist ideologies: hostile sexism (HS; viewing women as manipulative competitors who seek to gain power over men) coincides with benevolent sexism (BS; a chivalrous view of women as pure and moral, yet weak and passive, deserving men’s protection and admiration, as long as they conform). The research on these ideologies employs the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, used extensively in psychology and allied disciplines, often to understand the roles sexist attitudes play in reinforcing gender inequality. Following contemporary guidelines, this systematic review utilizes a principled approach to synthesize the multidisciplinary empirical literature on ambivalent sexism. After screening 1,870 potentially relevant articles and fully reviewing 654 eligible articles, five main domains emerge in ambivalent sexism research (social ideologies, violence, workplace, stereotypes, intimate relationships). The accumulating evidence across domains offers bottom-up empirical support for ambivalent sexism as a coordinated system to maintain control over women (and sometimes men). Hostile sexism acts through the direct and diverse paths of envious/resentful prejudices, being more sensitive to power and sexuality cues; Benevolent sexism acts through prejudices related to interdependence (primarily gender-based paternalism and gender-role differentiation), enforcing traditional gender relations and being more sensitive to role-related cues. Discussion points to common methodological limitations, suggests guidelines, and finds future avenues for ambivalent sexism research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interventions To Reduce Ambivalent Sexism (N Articles = 17)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles.

Bareket,

Fiske

2023

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Por lo tanto, se deben rechazar las explicaciones sexistas y simplistas como asumir una inferioridad intelectual en las mujeres frente a los hombres basada en el volumen de sus cerebros. No solamente se trataría pues de refutar falacias sexistas, sino también de revelar y explicar la extraordinaria semejanza entre los cerebros de mujeres y hombres (Rippon, 2020;Şahin y Soylu Yalcinkaya, 2021), siguiendo el mismo principio que subyace a la coeducación: la igualdad efectiva de mujeres y hombres.…”

Section: Neuroeducación En Defensa De La Coeducaciónunclassified

Formación del profesorado en neuroeducación para promover la coeducación

Gómez

2023

iQual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroeducation is an interdisciplinary science that studies the interaction between the brain, psychological processes, and education to optimize teaching and learning. The objective of this work is to address the need for teacher training in neuroeducation, based on the scientific findings that justify an inclusive education where the rights of effective equality of women and men are respected. A critical analysis is carried out, following an exploratory, descriptive, and explicative methodology. Thus, it describes the contents addressed from neuroeducation and it also warns about the responsibility of this disciplinary to communicate scientific results in a clear and understandable way to reduce the spread of fallacies or neuromyths regarding brain function. Besides, it reflects on the effects that the acceptance of sexist perspectives can have on education. Finally, it is argued that neuroeducation must critically interpret the differences and similarities in brain function of both sexes/genders to substantiate non-discrimination and coeducation. La neuroeducación es una ciencia interdisciplinar que estudia la interacción entre el cerebro, los procesos psicológicos y la educación para tratar de optimizar la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. El objetivo de este trabajo es abordar la necesidad de la formación del profesorado en neuroeducación, en base a los hallazgos científicos que justifican una educación inclusiva donde se respeten los derechos de la igualdad efectiva de mujeres y hombres. Para ello se realiza un análisis crítico, utilizando una metodología exploratoria, descriptiva y explicativa. Así, se refieren los contenidos abordados desde la neuroeducación y se advierte sobre la responsabilidad de esta disciplina a la hora transmitir los resultados científicos de forma clara y comprensible para combatir la difusión de falacias o neromitos respecto al funcionamiento cerebral. Además, se reflexiona sobre los efectos que puede tener en la educación la aceptación de perspectivas sexistas. Por último, se defiende que desde la neuroeducación se debe interpretar de forma crítica las diferencias y semejanzas en el funcionamiento cerebral de ambos sexos/géneros para fundamentar la no-discriminación y la coeducación.

show abstract

“…Indeed, even though women are likely to be motivated to sustain the gender-binary cycle owing to other motivations (e.g. the motivation to believe the system they are part of is just and fair; [105]), men relative to women are more likely to uphold a non-egalitarian gender ideology [14,106], and to endorse a biological-essentialist lay theory of gender [34,107]. Thus, for men (versus women), the gender-binary cycle might be more resistant to change, and when devising interventions, these varied motivations should be taken into account.…”

Section: Practical Implications and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The gender-binary cycle: the perpetual relations between a biological-essentialist view of gender, gender ideology, and gender-labelling and sorting

Saguy

Reifen‐Tagar

Joel

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender inequality is one of the most pressing issues of our time. A core factor that feeds gender inequality is people's gender ideology—a set of beliefs about the proper order of society in terms of the roles women and men should fill. We argue that gender ideology is shaped, in large parts, by the way people make sense of gender differences. Specifically, people often think of gender differences as expressions of a predetermined biology, and of men and women as different ‘kinds’. We describe work suggesting that thinking of gender differences in this biological-essentialist way perpetuates a non-egalitarian gender ideology. We then review research that refutes the hypothesis that men and women are different ‘kinds’ in terms of brain function, hormone levels and personality characteristics. Next, we describe how the organization of the environment in a gender-binary manner, together with cognitive processes of categorization drive a biological-essentialist view of gender differences. We then describe the self-perpetuating relations, which we term the gender-binary cycle , between a biological-essentialist view of gender differences, a non-egalitarian gender ideology and a binary organization of the environment along gender lines. Finally, we consider means of intervention at different points in this cycle. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms’.

show abstract

The Gendered Brain: Implications of Exposure to Neuroscience Research for Gender Essentialist Beliefs

Cited by 13 publications

References 43 publications

A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles.

A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles.

Formación del profesorado en neuroeducación para promover la coeducación

The gender-binary cycle: the perpetual relations between a biological-essentialist view of gender, gender ideology, and gender-labelling and sorting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About