Discussion: Gender Theories and Stereotypes

Feminism and Psychology Analysis of a Half-Century of Research on Women and Gender

Alice H. Eagly Northwestern University Asia Eaton and Suzanna M. Rose Florida International University

Stephanie Riger University of Illinois at Chicago Maureen C. McHugh Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Starting in the 1960s, feminists argued that the discipline of psychology had neglected the study of women and gender and misrepresented women in its research and theories. Feminists also posed many questions worthy of being ad- dressed by psychological science. This call for research preceded the emergence of a new and influential body of research on gender and women that grew especially rap- idly during the period of greatest feminist activism. The descriptions of this research presented in this article derive from searches of the journal articles cataloged by PsycINFO for 1960–2009. These explorations revealed (a) a concentration of studies in basic research areas investi- gating social behavior and individual dispositions and in many applied areas, (b) differing trajectories of research on prototypical topics, and (c) diverse theoretical orienta- tions that authors have not typically labeled as feminist. The considerable dissemination of this research is evident in its dispersion beyond gender-specialty journals into a wide range of other journals, including psychology’s core review and theory journals, as well as in its coverage in introductory psychology textbooks. In this formidable body of research, psychological science has reflected the pro- found changes in the status of women during the last half-century and addressed numerous questions that these changes have posed. Feminism served to catalyze this research area, which grew beyond the bounds of feminist psychology to incorporate a very large array of theories, methods, and topics.

Keywords: gender, women, psychological science, femi- nism

The dawning of the 20th century’s second wave offeminist activism in the 1960s brought exceptionalattention to the discipline of psychology. In The Feminine Mystique (Friedan, 1963), an opening salvo of the new social movement, Friedan laid some of the blame for women’s disadvantaged status on the influence of Freud and his followers. Although Friedan did not analyze the specifics of the wider content of psychological science, she condemned the entire social science endeavor: “Instead of destroying the old prejudices that restricted women’s lives, social science in America merely gave them new authority” (Friedan, 1963, p. 117). As Friedan and other feminists denounced the limits that society had placed on women’s

lives, they not only critiqued the discipline of psychology as part of the problem but also raised a host of issues that could potentially be addressed by psychological research. In this article, we examine the extent to which psycholog- ical research has addressed many of these issues.

Feminist psychologists soon extended Friedan’s (1963) analysis by arguing that psychology had contributed to women’s disadvantage by failing to study women and gender and by producing biased science in the sparse efforts that it had put forth. The first widely read indictment of psychology’s understanding of women written by a psychologist was Weisstein’s (1968, 1971) cogent, much- reprinted essay that ridiculed prominent psychologists’ characterizations of women as childlike, dependent, unas- sertive, and interested only in finding a husband and bear- ing children. Weisstein’s examples included, for example, Bettelheim’s (1965, p. 15) statement that “We must start with the realization that, as much as we want women to be good scientists or engineers, they want first and foremost to be womanly companions of men and to be mothers.” In such analyses, women’s motivations did not extend beyond marriage and childrearing. Other feminist voices soon joined Weisstein—for example, Shields (1975) wrote about the “social myths” such as maternal instinct that psychol- ogists had promulgated.

This article was published Online First February 27, 2012. Alice H. Eagly, Department of Psychology, Northwestern Univer-

sity; Asia Eaton and Suzanna M. Rose, Department of Psychology, Florida International University; Stephanie Riger, Department of Psychol- ogy and Department of Gender & Women’s Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago; Maureen C. McHugh, Department of Psychology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

This research was supported by grants from the Society for the Psychology of Women (Division 35 of the American Psychological As- sociation) and the Institute for Policy Research of Northwestern Univer- sity. The authors are members of the Feminist Transformations Task Force of the Society for the Psychology of Women.

We thank Anne Nash, Sarah Thomas, Samantha O’Connor, and Jeonghye Kim for research assistance; the PsycINFO staff for information about the database; Jessica Kohout, former director of the Center for Workforce Studies of the American Psychological Association, for help with psychology workforce statistics; and Kathryn Anderson, Kay Deaux, Janet Hyde, Laurie Rudman, Cheryl Travis, Jacquelyn White, Wendy Wood, and Janice Yoder for comments on a draft of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alice H. Eagly, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208. E-mail: [email protected]

211April 2012 ● American Psychologist © 2012 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/12/$12.00 Vol. 67, No. 3, 211–230 DOI: 10.1037/a0027260

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

The crux of the 1960s and 1970s feminist criticisms of the content of scientific psychology was that researchers had committed errors of omission and commission. Spe- cifically, feminists argued that the neglect of women and gender had produced largely “womanless” knowledge (Crawford & Marecek, 1989, p. 147) and that sexism plagued much of the theory and research that had been produced (e.g., McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986; Sherif, 1979). Many feminists argued that this bias followed in large part from psychology’s neglect of the social context of women’s lives in favor of emphasis on women’s intrin- sic nature, thus implying that women’s deficits of societal power and status are inevitable. In Weisstein’s (1968, p. 75) words, “One must understand the social conditions under which women live if one is going to attempt to explain the behavior of women. And to understand the social conditions under which women live, one must be cognizant of the social expectations about women.”

Feminists did acknowledge a few bright spots in psy- chology’s history, especially research by two early 20th- century feminists, Woolley (1910) and Hollingworth (1914), whose research challenged common assumptions about women’s intellectual inferiority (see Shields, 1975). In the period between this first wave of feminist activism and its second wave of mid- to late-20th century activism, research was sparse. The rare reviews that appeared (e.g., Maccoby, 1966; Miles, 1935) revealed few theoretical de- velopments and left enormous room for speculation about gender-relevant phenomena and their causes.

The criticisms by second-wave feminist psychologists reverberated throughout scientific psychology, calling for efforts to fill in the missing science and to develop theories and methods that would be free of the biases that feminists maintained had compromised most of the earlier efforts

(for review, see Chrisler & McHugh, 2011; Marecek, Kim- mel, Crawford, & Hare-Mustin, 2003; Rutherford & Granek, 2010). Therefore, our task is to evaluate the changes in scientific psychology that are relevant to this feminist critique. We consider the extent to which the content of psychological science has changed to incorpo- rate research on gender and women and in this article do not address issues of methodology and epistemology raised by feminists.

As we demonstrate in this article, much has changed in psychology since the 1960s. Not only has a distinctively feminist psychology developed, but also a large and diverse research concentration on the psychology of women and gender has emerged. These research efforts are varied and certainly not always guided by feminism even though the emergence of such a research field is generally consistent with feminist goals. Research regarded as feminist directly or indirectly reflects endorsement of the goal of achieving equality between women and men. Indeed, the concept of gender equality is the core of common-language definitions of feminism as “Belief in the social, political, and eco- nomic equality of the sexes” and “the movement organized around this belief” (Feminism, 2007). In most of the re- search that we discuss, authors have not explicitly ad- dressed this gender equality goal, nor have they labeled their research as feminist. Nonetheless, the gender-equality goals of feminism have no doubt led many researchers to investigate topics such as sexism, sexual harassment, and violence against women that implicitly or explicitly relate to feminist goals. Such value-directed choices do not in- validate the research, given that all scientific research stands or falls according to the replicability of its findings and the critical scrutiny of communities of researchers.

This article first catalogs the growth of this research on gender and women, its distribution across the various areas of psychology, and its attention to social categories in addition to gender. Next, we illustrate some of the unique contributions of this research by describing investigations of six prototypical topics. Finally, we discuss the theoret- ical orientations accompanying this research and examine its spread across psychology journals and into popular introductory psychology textbooks. To foreshadow our findings, these analyses reveal not only the considerable growth of this research area but also its movement from the periphery of the discipline toward its center, where it now exists as one of the many methodologically and theoreti- cally diverse content emphases of contemporary psycho- logical science.

Growth and Focus of Research on Women and Gender As this article will demonstrate, the study of women and gender has become a major focus of psychological science, rising dramatically from receiving almost no attention to a position of considerable popularity. Even superficial obser- vation of the content of psychological research of the last half-century reveals not only disciplinary shifts of focus (e.g., the cognitive revolution; Proctor & Vu, 2006) but

Alice H. Eagly

212 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

also the intertwining of psychology with societal changes including the feminist and civil rights movements. Under the influence of these social movements, some researchers took note of the issues raised and deployed the methods of psychological science to address them. Although the in- crease in empirical research on gender and women cannot in simple fashion be ascribed to feminism, its initial rise coincided with feminist activism in the societies in which this research emerged. This activism accompanied the broad socioeconomic changes that propelled large numbers of women into the labor force in the United States and other Western industrialized nations in the second half of the 20th century.

To demonstrate the overall growth of research on women and gender, we have engaged in the straightforward exercise of counting relevant journal articles. All of these data derive from the PsycINFO database accessed on the PsycNET platform of the American Psychological Associ- ation. This database is very broad, encompassing approxi- mately 2,500 journals, 32% of which are published in the United States and 68% in other nations (PsycINFO staff, personal communication, February 14, 2011). Psychology journals are typically indexed cover-to-cover, and articles in journals from neighboring fields such as medicine and sociology are indexed only if deemed to have psychologi- cal relevance or importance to psychology. Our various analyses counted journal articles from 1960, which pre- dated all but a small amount of relevant research, through the end of 2009, the most recent year for which complete data were available in PsycINFO when we conducted our analyses. Our efforts thereby encompass exactly a half- century of psychological literature.

Quantity of Research

To reflect the ambiguities of the boundaries of research on gender and women, we implemented three different criteria for selecting relevant journal articles. Our search method used PsycINFO thesaurus index terms because of their greater consistency in identifying articles’ major themes, compared with authors’ own keywords and titles (Ameri- can Psychological Association, 2011). Index terms are ap- plied to each article by a staff that has been trained to assign these terms in a consistent manner. Index terms were joined by the OR Boolean operator so that articles classi- fied by more than one of the relevant index terms were counted only once. These searches were limited to studies with human population groups reported in journal articles (excluding case histories, reprinted articles, and articles announcing awards). Articles in all languages were ac- cepted, as were articles in all journals.

Because PsycINFO staff classify all research that fo- cuses on comparisons of women and men or girls and boys under the index term human sex differences, our first count selected only articles identified by this index term. These articles, which concern female–male comparison as one theme but not necessarily the only one, are embedded in a great range of specific research topics. Many investigations pertain to cognitive abilities and personality traits, and others to attitudes, socialization, sexual behavior, health, and interpersonal processes and behaviors. These articles may report sex-related differences or similarities or may focus on moderators that produce variability in the results of sex comparisons.

Our second count broadened our definition by supple- menting the human sex differences index term by adding index terms that PsycINFO uses to classify articles on gender topics, which do not necessarily have comparison of the sexes as a major theme: sex discrimination, sex role attitudes, sex roles, sexism, gender identity, gender identity disorder, femininity, masculinity, and androgyny. Our third count broadened the definition further by including wom- en-oriented index terms, which encompassed many studies of women only. This expansion added all index terms pertaining to (a) women (psychology of women, working women, human females, female attitudes, female criminals, female delinquency); (b) mothers (mothers, adolescent mothers, expectant mothers, mother absence, mother child communication, mother child relations, schizophrenogenic mothers, single mothers, unwed mothers); and (c) feminism (feminism, women’s liberation movement, feminist psychol- ogy, feminist therapy). In summary of these three defini- tions of the psychology of women and gender, the first encompassed articles classified by the index term human sex differences, the second added index terms pertaining to the psychology of gender, and the third added women- oriented index terms pertaining to women, mothers, and feminism. Figures 1 and 2 display articles classified by these three definitions. In this article, we use the term psychology of women and gender to refer to the research area defined by the third, or broadest, of these three definitions.

Asia Eaton

213April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Although our search strategies were not expected to locate every article that addressed the psychology of women and gender, they captured the great majority of these articles. For example, our third and broadest defini-

tion identified 89% of the articles that have been published in the Psychology of Women Quarterly and Sex Roles. More complex research strategies that added authors’ own keywords and titles encompassed more articles, but more of these did not have gender and women as central themes. Nevertheless, all of the several alternative search strategies that we tried out produced trends closely resembling those shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1, displaying the yearly frequencies of articles, shows growth in the amount of research on gender and women, with our third, or broadest, definition yielding the steepest rise. These results suggest that psychological re- search is no longer womanless. To provide more direct evidence of this generalization, we performed a simpler analysis by counting the numbers of articles classified in PsycINFO by the index terms human females compared with human males. These index terms are defined not merely by studies’ sex of participants but also by their content emphasis on understanding the psychology of one sex or the other, specifically, “when sex is pertinent to the focus of the study” (American Psychological Association, 2011). Excluding articles classified by both of these index terms, the female-to-male ratio of articles’ content focus for 1960–2009 was 3.14. This difference in favor of women was present in the 1970s (ratio of 2.27) and has increased over time (ratio of 3.59 for the 2000s). Thus, in contemporary psychology, when there is an explicit content focus on the psychology of one sex, that sex much more

Figure 1 Annual Frequency of Articles on the Psychology of Sex Differences, Gender, and Women in PsycINFO by Three Definitions

Suzanna M. Rose

214 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

commonly is females than males. Yet, this analysis would underestimate the attention to men if, as some feminists have argued, the psychology of men sometimes masquer- ades as the general psychology of humans in articles that do not explicitly focus on men (e.g., McHugh et al., 1986; Riger, 1992).

Part of the growth of research on gender and women displayed in Figure 1 reflects the increase in the total amount of research and publication in psychology. To account for this expansion of psychology, Figure 2 displays articles indexed relative to the total number of articles on human psychology appearing yearly in PsycINFO. The difference between the sheer number of articles on women and gender and the number relative to all article production in psychology can be seen by comparing Figures 1 and 2. The relative trends of Figure 2 thus reveal a peak in 1979, toward the end of the period of greatest feminist activism in the United States. The defeat of the Equal Rights Amend- ment in 1982 brought an ebbing of feminist protest (Mans- bridge, 1986) and coincided with the ebbing of research. Nonetheless, the scientific interest in women and gender had taken root in psychology and continued to flourish. Thus, the early 1980s’ decline in this research was fol- lowed by a subsequent rise or stabilization, and a decline in the 2000s (see Figure 2).

Research on women and gender, relative to all psy- chological research cataloged by PsycINFO, appears to be somewhat less popular in the most recent years. This shift in part reflects the enlargement and changes in the compo- sition of PsycINFO, given that the database has added 1,206 journals since 2000 (PsycINFO staff, personal com- munication, February 22, 2011). In particular, more jour- nals not published in the United States have been added. In addition, more neuroscience and physiological psychology journals have been added, and, as the next subsection of this article shows, this area of psychology has a smaller

Figure 2 Annual Frequency of Articles on the Psychology of Sex Differences, Gender, and Women by Three Definitions, Relative to All Human Psychology Articles in PsycINFO

Stephanie Riger

215April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

concentration of gender research than many other areas. Moreover, because of the sheer increase in PsycINFO coverage, some other research areas also have decreased in relative size, especially the area identified by PsycINFO as human experimental psychology. In addition, sociopolitical factors that may have dampened research interest in gender

and women include the postmillennial stalling of gender- egalitarian social change (Blau, Brinton, & Grusky, 2006; England, 2010) and a degree of backlash against some of the changes that have occurred (e.g., Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). Nevertheless, the area remains active by our narrow, broader, and broadest defi- nitions: in 2009, 24, 31, and 65 articles per 1,000, respec- tively. However, this initial look at the considerable invest- ment of researchers in the psychology of women and gender does not reveal much about its content. We there- fore examine this content in more detail.

Distribution of Research Across the Areas of Psychology One straightforward way to reveal the broad contours of research on gender and women is to examine its distribu- tion across the areas into which psychology is commonly organized both within universities and in its journals. Fa- cilitating this analysis, the Content Classification Codes of PsycINFO provide a set of 22 general categories (e.g., developmental psychology, physiological psychology and neuroscience), each of which has 1 to 27 subcategories (American Psychological Association, n.d.). We classi- fied the entire group of gender articles from 1960 on- ward, as defined by the broadest of our three definitions, into the 22 general categories, each of which encom- passed its subcategories.

Figure 3 displays these data as the percentage of all articles on women and gender that appear in each of the major areas of psychology. The area with the largest per- centage of these articles is social processes and social

Figure 3 Percentage of All Articles on the Psychology of Sex Differences, Gender, and Women in PsycINFO Content Code Classifications (1960–2009)

Maureen C. McHugh

216 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

issues (e.g., social structure and organization, marriage and family, political processes and issues). Given that one of this area’s subcategories is sex roles and women’s issues (e.g., gender roles, masculinity, femininity, feminist ideol- ogy), it is not surprising that this area ranks first. Ranking next in order of decreasing concentration of research on women and gender are developmental psychology, person- ality psychology, social psychology, sport psychology and leisure, psychological and physical disorders, industrial and organizational psychology, and military psychology.

These data show that the psychology of women and gender is distributed across many areas of psychology and has attained at least moderate representation in several specialty areas. Yet, some areas offer little relevant content, including psychometrics, statistics, and methodology; hu- man experimental psychology; general psychology; and intelligent systems. Instead, research on women and gender is most concentrated in the basic research areas concerned with development, social behavior, and individual person- ality dispositions, as well as in numerous applied areas.

The existence of these Classification Codes within PsycINFO yields some power to gauge the magnitude of article production on the psychology of women and gender, which by our broadest definition is 52,824 articles in 2000– 2009. We compare this output of articles to the entire output in each of several other fields. Specifically, for 2000–2009, with fields defined by their Classification Codes, developmental psychology yields 31,147 articles, personality psychology yields 17,428 articles, social psy- chology yields 11,226 articles, and industrial and organi- zational psychology yields 29,223. In fact, for 2000–2009 the article count for the psychology of women and gender exceeds that for all Classification Code areas except for psychological and physical disorders, which yields 147,870 articles, and health and mental health treatment and prevention, which yields 128,027 articles. Therefore, even though the psychology of women and gender accounts for a (small) percentage of article production within each of these fields of psychology (see Figure 3), the conclusion is inescapable that the total gender/women research field, which is dispersed across many areas of psychology, has a relatively large total production of articles.

Representation of the Diversity of Gender Another way to examine the content of research on women and gender is to assess its representation of other social category memberships along with female and male, an issue labeled by the term intersectionality in feminist writ- ing (Cole, 2009; Landrine & Russo, 2010; Shields, 2008). Although Black feminists raised this issue in the 1970s (e.g., Torrey, 1979), it has become a particular focus of attention during the contemporary phase of feminism sometimes identified as its third wave, which followed the second wave of the 1960s through the early 1980s (see Gillis, Howie, & Munford, 2007). Third-wave feminists criticized psychologists’ emphasis on women as a social category because it did not take account of the heteroge- neity of women within this category. As Fine and Gordon (1989, p. 147) wrote, “Gender always braids with social

class, race/ethnicity, age, disability (or not), and sexual orientation, as well as social context to produce socially and historically constituted subjectivities.” Moreover, re- search on gender and women, like other psychological research, disproportionately represents educated members of Western, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).

To examine researchers’ attention to the heterogeneity of gender, we identified articles on gender and women by our broadest definition and counted within this category the articles that also addressed race or ethnicity, social class or poverty, or sexual orientation. These articles were identi- fied by index terms denoting race or ethnicity (e.g., Asians, Blacks, Latinos/Latinas, racial and ethnic attitudes); social class or poverty (e.g., income level, middle class, poverty, socioeconomic status); or sexual orientation (e.g., homo- sexuality, transsexualism, lesbianism, sexual orientation, bisexuality).

These three analyses appear in Figure 4 in articles per 1,000 within our broadest definition of the psychology of gender and women. These findings suggest that only a minority of these articles have included the diversity of gender as a salient theme. The strongest temporal increase is for articles combining gender with race or ethnicity, with the gain in 1990–2003 likely reflecting the emphasis on intersectionality in feminism’s third wave. Consistent with critiques of psychological research as neglecting social class and poverty (Lott & Bullock, 2007; Reid, 1993), this emphasis has so far remained relatively uncommon. Al- though gender research that includes sexual orientation displays a weak upward trend, attention to this form of intersectionality has been quite limited (see Lee & Craw- ford, 2007). Intersectionality thus remains a theme deserv- ing greater attention.

Research on Prototypical Topics

To probe the substance of research on women and gender, we examined themes and historical trends for several topics that illustrate the types of investigations that emerged sub- sequent to the feminist call for research. Although our choices of topics are to some extent arbitrary, we selected six topics with an eye to distributing them across relevant areas of psychology. Also, to illustrate variability in the relationship of research on women and gender to what might be considered psychology’s “mainstream,” we chose some topics that fit readily into traditional research areas and some that did not. Three topics thus emerged within broader research areas that were well established prior to second-wave feminism: gender stereotypes and sex role attitudes, gender and depression, and work–family issues. To analyze these topics, researchers initially deployed con- cepts already present within relevant areas, thus easing the initiation of research. As contrasts to these three topics, we chose an additional three topics that were not positioned within traditional areas and that reflect feminists’ activist agenda for social change: intimate partner violence, abor- tion, and sexual harassment.

217April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

For all six topics, we located relevant research by searching PsycINFO from 1960 through 2009 with appro- priate index terms. Figures 5 and 6 present these data.

Adding Gender to Existing Research Areas

Research on the three topics that added gender to exist- ing research areas shows a trend of increasing popular- ity, but with a dramatic early rise and fall in research on gender stereotypes and sex role attitudes (see Figure 5). In contrast, gender and depression and work–family issues show more consistent but gradual increases. Each of these three research topics has a unique history.

Gender stereotypes and sex role atti- tudes (index terms � sex role attitudes, sexism1). Given the traditional emphasis of social psychology on attitudes and stereotypes as causes of behavior, gender research using these concepts fit smoothly into the field (Biernat & Deaux, 2012), speeding the topic’s rapid early rise in popularity. In research on the cultural stereotypes that people commonly hold about women and men in general, two dimensions, one masculine and the other feminine, consistently emerged (e.g., Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972; Williams & Best, 1990), with researchers often applying Bakan’s (1966) agency and communion terms to describe their content (see review by Wood & Eagly, 2010). Despite decline in the amount of gender stereotyping research, recent experiments on stereo- type threat have attracted attention by revealing that ste- reotypes portraying one’s own sex unfavorably can lower

performance on stereotype-relevant tasks (see Nguyen & Ryan, 2008; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002).

In an attitudinal context, gender prejudice became known as sexism. Innovative measures emerged (Spence & Helmreich, 1972; Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995; see review by McHugh & Frieze, 1997). Research re- vealed that attitudes toward women are both positive, or benevolent, and negative, or hostile (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Implicit measures have become increasingly pop- ular and further established the pervasiveness of sexism and gender stereotyping (e.g., Rudman, Greenwald, & McGhee, 2001).

Gender and depression (index terms � 13 terms containing the word depression such as major de- pression, postpartum depression, recurrent depression, Beck Depression Inventory; also, dysthymic disorder). Ini- tial forays into this topic suggested that women’s life situations, especially the homemaker role, created vulner- ability to mental illness (e.g., Gove & Tudor, 1973). As subsequent research found that the higher incidence of depression in women begins in adolescence and is not confined to homemakers (Radloff, 1975), researchers turned to more proximal variables. Among these more

1 Because these index terms did not select for most research on stereotype threat, we departed from our exclusive use of index terms by adding the following: Index term � human sex differences AND key- words � “stereotype threat.” Most gender stereotype research is indexed with “sex roles attitudes.”

Figure 4 Annual Frequency of Articles Addressing Race and Ethnicity, Social Class, or Sexual Orientation, Relative to All Articles on the Psychology of Sex Differences, Gender, and Women in PsycINFO

218 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

fine-grained analyses were studies examining the learned helplessness that can be associated with women’s life sit- uations (Seligman, 1975).

Efforts to integrate existing findings ensued (e.g., No- len-Hoeksema, 1987), followed by an increase in the num- ber of articles. Some of this research implicated individual factors such as genes (Eley et al., 2004), hormones (Cyra- nowski, Frank, Young, & Shear, 2000), ruminative cogni- tive style (Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994), and person- ality variables relevant to emotional processes (Kendler, Neale, Kessler, Heath, & Eaves, 1993). Depression in women was also related to negative life experiences such as sexual abuse and peer harassment (Kendler, Kuhn, & Prescott, 2004), troubled interpersonal relationships (Shih, Eberhart, Hammen, & Brennan, 2006), body image dissat- isfaction and objectification (Grabe, Hyde, & Lindberg, 2007), and the stresses that can follow from caregiving (Cyranowski & Frank, 2006). Given the many variables that predict depression’s higher incidence in women, re- searchers proposed broad theories in which affective, bio- logical, and cognitive proclivities of individuals interact with negative life events to produce greater female vulner- ability (e.g., Hankin & Abramson, 2001; Hyde, Mezulis, & Abramson, 2008).

Work–family issues (index terms � family work relationships, dual careers2). With the growth of the labor force participation of women, especially of moth- ers, in the 1970s and 1980s (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010), psychologists initiated research on em- ployed mothers and dual-earner couples (e.g., T. W. Martin, Berry, & Jacobsen, 1975). Studies monitored the

division of labor within the family (e.g., Benin & Ed- wards, 1990), along with family members’ perceptions of its fairness (e.g., Sanchez, 1994). Many investigations centered on the effects of maternal employment on mar- riages (e.g., Chassin, Zeiss, Cooper, & Reaven, 1985), on children’s adjustment and academic achievement (e.g., Goldberg, Prause, Lucas-Thompson, & Himsel, 2008; Vandell & Ramanan, 1992), and on women them- selves, including their stress and well-being (e.g., Raver, 2003).

This research area also includes studies of the health consequences of work–family stress (van Steenbergen, & Ellemers, 2009) and of organizational policies that can influence this stress (Galinsky & Stein, 1990). Workplace discrimination against mothers also received attention (Crosby, Williams, & Biernat, 2004). In addition, an earlier focus on work–family conflict (e.g., Loerch, Russell, & Rush, 1989) has given way to a more positive focus on work–family facilitation (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Green- haus & Powell, 2006).

In summary of these three prototypical topics, the especially rapid growth of research on gender stereotypes and attitudes is notable. This topic caught the wave not only of feminism but also of the growing interest in ste-

2 In a departure from our usual strategy, identifying most articles on work–family issues required the addition of some paired index terms: division of labor AND employment status; mothers AND employment status; family relations AND working women; husbands AND wives AND occupations; employee benefits AND family; role conflicts AND working women.

Figure 5 Annual Frequency of Articles on Three Gender Topics Related to Traditional Research Areas, Relative to All Human Psychology Articles in PsycINFO

219April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

reotyping among social cognition researchers. In contrast, research on gender and depression and work–family issues grew more slowly, reflecting the complexity of understand- ing gender within these traditions. Beginning in the mid- 1990s, gender and depression became the most popular of these three research topics.

Addressing Feminism’s Activist Agenda Feminist activists drew attention to the multiple ways in which women’s disadvantage is maintained. This activism centered on ameliorating these problems through legisla- tion (e.g., forbidding sexual harassment), judicial decisions (e.g., legalizing abortion), community organizing (e.g., es- tablishing shelters for battered women), and individual skills training (e.g., self-defense classes, assertiveness training). To represent such topics, which did not fit easily into pre-existing frameworks, we examined research on intimate partner violence, abortion, and sexual harassment. Feminists intended that such research not only contribute to knowledge but also inform and support activists and foster progressive social change through legislation and other means.

As shown in Figure 6, these three areas, especially intimate partner violence, have shown growth. This in- crease appeared earlier for abortion, with activity peaking around the time of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Research on intimate partner violence and sexual harassment was rare until the 1980s, with sexual harass- ment peaking in the 1990s and intimate partner violence in the late 1990s and the 2000s. Each of these research topics has a distinctive history.

Intimate partner violence (index terms � battered females, partner abuse, domestic violence, inti- mate partner violence). After early research exposed the prevalence of physical aggression in marriages (e.g., D. Martin, 1976), researchers focused mainly on battered women—that is, the victims of unilateral, severe physi- cal aggression perpetrated by husbands against their wives. Studies investigated cyclical patterns of violence (Walker, 1979), the characteristics of batterers (e.g., Gondolf, 1988), and the coping of female victims of male violence (e.g., Koss, Bailey, Yuan, Herrera, & Lichter, 2003). The research broadened to include phys- ical and psychological abuse in other relationships, in- cluding those of dating teens and gay and lesbian indi- viduals (e.g., Tjaden, Thoennes, & Allison, 1999; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999).

Some researchers emphasized the similar overall in- cidence of aggression by female and male partners (e.g., Archer, 2000; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Feminist researchers have debated the meaning of these incidence data and have suggested that different models may be needed to understand female and male intimate partner violence (Frieze, 2008; McHugh, Livingston, & Ford, 2005). In one approach, Johnson (1995) distinguished be- tween patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence. Recent reviews (e.g., McHugh, 2005) indicate a lack of theoretical consensus but substantial progress in under- standing the forms and interpersonal contexts of intimate partner violence.

Abortion (index terms � abortion {attitudes to- ward}, induced abortion). The legalization of abortion was

Figure 6 Annual Frequency of Articles on Three Novel Gender Topics, Relative to All Human Psychology Articles in PsycINFO

220 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

an important goal of the second-wave feminist movement, which emphasized the importance of reproductive freedom (Smyth, 2002). Early studies focused on understanding emotions, cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors related to abortion (e.g., Adler & Tschann, 1993; Rosen, Werley, Ager, & Shea, 1974) and its psychiatric antecedents and consequences (e.g., Pfeiffer, 1970). Later research has re- flected the goal of improving women’s lives through inter- ventions that support their reproductive decisions (e.g., Littman, Zarcadoolas, & Jacobs, 2009) and ensure their access to reproductive choices and safe abortions (Baiden, 2009; Jones & Weitz, 2009).

A review evaluating the mental health implications of abortion compared with completion of an unwanted preg- nancy concluded that the majority of women who terminate pregnancies do not experience negative mental health con- sequences (Major et al., 2009). Although these authors called for research on the antecedents of unwanted preg- nancy and abortion, this research area has never received more than modest attention in psychological research. Given the continuing political conflict about abortion, fu- ture research will no doubt reflect multiple perspectives on individual rights, gender issues, social relationships, and human life (e.g., Shrage, 1994).

Sexual harassment (index term � sexual ha- rassment). It was not until the 1970s that unwanted sexual behavior was labeled sexual harassment and became a focus of feminist activism. Researchers have examined the prevalence, organizational context, and impact on victims of sexual harassment, as well as policies designed to pre- vent it (Fitzgerald, 1993; Riger, 1991). Research initially focused on men abusing positions of power and broadened to examine harassment from peers and subordinates as well as superiors. Large-scale surveys of the federal workforce provided data on the incidence of harassment (e.g., U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1995), and other studies examined harassment in educational settings (Hill & Silva, 2005).

The handling of sexual harassment in the legal system has been another focus of research (e.g., Wright & Fitzger- ald, 2009). The codification of sexual harassment in law and organizational guidelines appears to have lessened agitation for prohibitions against harassment and in turn probably accounts for the some of the decline of research activity.

Multiple theoretical perspectives have framed sexual harassment research (O’Leary-Kelly, Bowes-Sperry, Bates, & Lean, 2009; Tangri, Burt, & Johnson, 1982), ranging from a focus on individual differences (Pryor, 1987) to organizational dynamics and culture (Gutek & Morasch, 1982; Timmerman & Bajema, 2000). In general, the research supports the view that harassment is best un- derstood in terms of a confluence of psychological and social determinants.

In summary, these three research topics illustrate ef- forts to understand phenomena that feminists regarded as barriers to gender equality. None of these topics became extremely popular in psychological research, and in recent

years only intimate partner violence retains substantial research productivity.

Theoretical Orientations of Research on Women and Gender Despite the rise of psychological research on women and gender along with the second-wave feminist movement, this research is often not recognizably feminist in theoret- ical orientation. The women’s movement awakened inter- est in gender issues, spawned feminist psychology, and originated numerous concepts that guided some psycholog- ical research (e.g., sexism, sexual harassment). As illus- trated in the prior section of this article, some of this research has explicitly supported feminism’s activist goals, but most research on women and gender cannot be so identified. Consistent with this spreading of interest in gender and women well beyond feminist psychology, a large and diverse assortment of theories underlie this research.

Explicitly Feminist Orientation

One consideration is the extent to which research on women and gender has been feminist in the sense of in- voking ideas or theories inspired by or consistent with feminist ideology. Capturing such articles is difficult, given the fuzzy boundaries of theoretical orientations and, in the case of feminist theory, its internal diversity in terms of approaches and assumptions (Chrisler & McHugh, 2011; Gergen, 2000). Moreover, authors who consider their work feminist often do not explicitly apply this label to it.

In an admittedly highly imperfect approach to estimat- ing the prevalence of explicitly feminist theory, we counted feminist articles within the psychology of women and gender. The index terms of feminism, feminist psychology, feminist therapy, or women’s liberation movement identi- fied only 3.4% of the articles within our broadest definition of the psychology of women and gender for the years 1960–2009, with an increasing trend from 1969 onward. Overtly feminist identification of journal articles in psy- chology is thus relatively rare and remained so even with an alternative, maximally inclusive search encompassing keywords, titles, and abstracts.

Multiple Theories of Gender

Because articles on gender and women are extremely di- verse in theoretical orientation, it is not in general feasible to classify them by theory. Many authors refer descrip- tively to variables as causal but do not frame their analyses in terms of a distinct psychological theory. Within specific research topics such as sexual harassment, a wide range of phenomenon-specific theories have flourished to account for the complexity of the phenomenon (see O’Leary et al., 2009). Many authors considered more than one general or phenomenon-specific theory within a single article.

Theories most easily recognized as feminist feature situational factors that produce female disadvantage—for example, sexist attitudes, salient gender role norms, and power structures that subordinate women. Although some

221April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

of these theories have a strong social constructionist em- phasis (e.g., West & Zimmerman, 1987), others capture the interactions of situational and individual causes (e.g., Deaux & Major, 1987), and still others blend situational, personality, and biological causes (Eagly & Wood, 2012; Hyde et al., 2008; for review, see Wood & Eagly, 2010).

Because the overriding theme of social psychology is the power of the situation to produce psychological phe- nomena, it is not surprising that many social psychological theories not mainly concerned with gender have been ef- fectively applied to understand gender in the situationalist terms preferred by many feminist psychologists (e.g., Weisstein, 1968). Social psychology has provided theoret- ical vocabularies for analyzing situational influences. For example, social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978) has yielded a useful framework for understanding sex discrimination (Schmitt, Spoor, Danaher, & Branscombe, 2009) and fem- inist collective action (van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). Expectation states theory (Correll & Ridgeway, 2003) has spawned considerable research that focuses on the implications of men’s generally higher status for the behavior of women and men (Ridgeway & Bourg, 2004). System justification theory (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) has provided insight into gender stereotyping and ideology and its effects on behavior (Jost & Kay, 2005). In other subfields of psychology as well, general theories have been applied to gender issues. For example, developmental re- search has featured the social cognitive theory of develop- ment (Bussey & Bandura, 2004), stage theories of devel- opment (e.g., Torges, Stewart, & Duncan, 2008), and many other theories (see review by Blakemore, Berenbaum, & Liben, 2009). Personality theories examining gender have included the five-factor model of personality (Costa, Ter- racciano, & McCrae, 2001), models of emotional intelli- gence (Joseph & Newman, 2010), and theory based on schematic information processing (Bem, 1981).

Evolutionary psychology emerged in the 1980s, thereby bringing a new group of psychologists to the study of gender. The roots of this research lie not in feminism, but in sociobiological theorizing (Wilson, 1975), which in turn emerged from earlier Darwinian theory (Darwin, 1871). The perspective has gained visibility, especially as a theory of sex differences in dispositions and behaviors (Buss, 1999). To gauge the imprint of evolutionary psy- chology on the psychology of sex differences, we used two methods to determine the percentage of evolutionary psy- chology articles among all of the articles cataloged by PsycINFO as addressing human sex differences. The first method, which counted articles by all index terms contain- ing evolutionary concepts (e.g., evolutionary psychology, theory of evolution, natural selection), identified only 0.71% of the articles classified by the index term human sex differences in the prior decade, 2000–2009. A second method supplemented these index terms by including all of the articles on human sex differences published in journals containing evolutionary terms in their titles (e.g., Evolution and Human Behavior; Sexualities, Evolution, and Gender), regardless of whether PsycINFO had classified the arti- cles by evolutionary index terms. Even this more inclu-

sive method identified only 1.25% of all articles classi- fied by the human sex differences index term, 2000 – 2009. Thus, it is clear that evolutionary psychology does not dominate the production of research that considers human sex differences.

Although a feminist contingent exists within the evo- lutionary science of human behavior (e.g., Gowaty, 2003; Hrdy, 2009; Vandermassen, 2011), many feminist psychol- ogists have remained critics of evolutionary psychology because of its emphasis on the differing innate natures of men and women and its lack of attention to active, con- structive cultural processes (e.g., Eagly & Wood, 1999, 2011; Travis, 2003). Despite such criticisms, evolutionary psychology has considerable visibility and has spawned intense debates about how nature and nurture combine in producing the phenomena of gender observed in contem- porary societies (Gangestad & Simpson, 2007). For exam- ple, the journal Sex Roles devoted an entire 2011 special issue to evolutionary psychology (Smith & Konik, 2011).

Diffusion of Research on the Psychology of Gender and Women Gender research would be more influential and central to psychology to the extent that it has diffused throughout psychological science. In describing the content of this research, we have already indicated that it is concentrated in the basic research areas that address social behavior and individual dispositions (developmental, personality, and social) as well as in health-related and other applied areas of psychology. This dissemination within these areas might nonetheless have been limited by a concentration of pub- lication in journals specializing in gender research. Alter- natively, most research on gender and women instead might have been published in a wide range of journals defined by the traditional areas of psychology (e.g., clini- cal, social, industrial–organizational, educational) as well as in gender-specialty journals. Also, regardless of where gender research is published, it may or may not be well represented in psychology’s core review and theory jour- nals. Furthermore, one route for the dissemination of psy- chological science to the broader public is through psychol- ogy textbooks, especially those written for the large introductory psychology market. We surveyed all of these forms of the diffusion of research on gender and women.

Diffusion Across Journals

We first examined the extent to which research on the psychology of women and gender might be relegated to specialty journals that limit their content to gender re- search. Therefore, the journals in which the articles on women and gender have appeared were classified into two categories: gender specialty and all others. The specialty journals consist of the 52 journals listed in PsycINFO that have sex, gender, or feminism terms in their titles (e.g., Feminism & Psychology; Gender, Work, and Organiza- tions; Psychology of Women Quarterly; Sex Roles; Wom- en’s Studies International Forum). According to our broad- est definition of research on women and gender, only 9.1%

222 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

of the articles selected by this definition appeared in gen- der-specialty journals. Because the number of such journals increased over the years, it is also notable that only 11.5% of these articles appeared in these specialty journals in 2000–2009. Also, the wide dispersion of research on gen- der and women across a great range of journals in psychol- ogy and related fields is consistent with our determination that the 10 nonspecialty journals publishing the largest number of these articles (e.g., Psychological Reports, Child Development) together accounted for only 9.0% of the articles on women and gender appearing in nonspecialty journals. Therefore, research on the psychology of women and gender is not strongly concentrated in journals devoted to women and gender topics or in a narrow range of nonspecialty journals.

Another index of diffusion considers the extent to which articles on gender and women have appeared in psychology’s most influential review and theory journals. We therefore identified 15 such journals, defined as the highest impact journals not presenting mainly primary re- search or methodological articles. With Five-Year Impact Factors3 ranging from 23.5 to 4.6 (Thomson Reuters, 2011), these journals, in descending order, are Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Annual Review of Psychology, Psy- chological Bulletin, Trends in Cognitive Science, Psycho- logical Review, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, American Psychologist, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Per- sonality and Social Psychology Review, Psychological In- quiry, Clinical Psychology Review, Neuropsychology Re- view, Educational Psychology Review, and Current Directions in Psychological Science.

By our broadest definition of the psychology of women and gender, articles in this area accounted for 3.5% (1960–2009) and 3.6% (2000–2009) of all articles in these prominent theory and review journals. The highest rep- resentation in any of these journals in this most recent decade is 5.4% in Psychological Bulletin, psychology’s most elite review journal. Among these articles 37.9% are meta-analyses classified by the index term human sex differences.

It is useful to place these values for representation in elite journals in the context of the total article production in the psychology of women and gender, which by our broad- est definition is 7.5% (1960–2009) and 7.6% (2000–2009) of all articles with human populations cataloged by Psy- cINFO. Despite the smaller representation in these elite journals than in all journals, it seems fair to conclude that the psychology of gender and women has become moder- ately represented in psychology’s most influential theory and review journals.

Representation in Introductory Psychology Textbooks Introductory psychology textbooks are important for com- municating psychological science to the broader public. Psychology is a very popular undergraduate major, yield- ing 94,271 bachelor’s degrees in 2008–09 (National Cen- ter for Education Statistics, 2010). The introductory course

is also taken by many students who have other college majors. Therefore, if gender research is to reach a broader public, introductory psychology textbooks constitute one of the important routes. Therefore, we examined the extent to which the psychology of gender and women is included in the current textbooks.

Table 1 portrays the inclusion of research on women and gender in the 10 top-selling introductory psychology textbooks (Bowker, 2010), examined in their longer ver- sion for those books published in a shorter and longer edition. To produce these data, two of the authors of this article independently inspected all pages of a printed copy of each book. To avoid counting the same content more than once, these coders excluded material outside of the core textbook content, including prefaces, chapter outlines, chapter and section summaries or recaps, epilogues, quiz- zes and postchapter exercises, appendices, references, and glossaries. Material elaborating core content but placed in “boxes” was coded.

In a first phase, the two coders independently noted the pages containing any instance of the basic gender and women terms: gender, sex, women/woman, mother(s), girl(s), female(s), and feminine as well as synonyms for these terms. The coders also noted terms pertaining to the six topics discussed in the section “Research on Prototyp- ical Topics.” Intercoder agreement was high (Cohen’s kappa � .96), and (the few) errors were corrected in comparing the two sets of codings.

In a second phase, the two coders independently de- cided which of the pages noted as containing one or more relevant terms should be included in the final count. Their rule was that pages were retained only if the textbook authors used the terms in the context of research or theory on gender or women in humans, including male–female comparisons and information about particular groups of women (i.e., working mothers). Statements pertaining only to sexuality (e.g., sexual intercourse) were excluded unless they were explicitly connected to gender issues such as male–female comparisons of sexual behavior or attitudes toward sexuality. Terms used in a manner unrelated to research on gender and women were not counted—for example, “Some get by with 3 or 4 hours of sleep, and one healthy 70-year-old woman slept only about 1 hour per night” (Kalat, 2011, p. 355). Statements possibly implying gender stereotypes such as “In 1966, a young man named Charles Whitman killed his wife and mother and then climbed to the top of a tower at the University of Texas and shot 38 people” (Myers, 2010, p. 501) were not counted unless the authors explicitly associated them with informa- tion about gender issues. Intercoder agreement for this second phase of the coding was high (Cohen’s kappa � .87), and disagreements were resolved by discussion.

As shown in Table 1, our count of pages containing basic concepts related to the psychology of gender and

3 The Five-Year Impact Factor is “the average number of times articles from the journal published in the last five years have been cited” in a given year (Thomson Reuters, 2009).

223April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

women, as appearing in the context of research or theory on gender or women, indicated variable representation across the texts. The mean representation across the 10 books was 20.9% of pages containing at least some material on gender or women. In the four textbooks with a separate chapter on sex and gender issues, this content was concentrated in that chapter.

Our counts of the number of pages addressing each of the six topics that we chose as prototypical of research on gender and women also appear in Table 1. The textbooks’ coverage varied from four to six of these topics. The topic given by far the most emphasis was gender stereotypes and sex role attitudes, covered in all books, with the number of pages mentioning this issue ranging from 4 to 23. Material related to gender and depression and to intimate partner violence was also covered in every book, although on fewer pages. The least popular topics were sexual harass- ment and abortion. Each of these two topics appeared in only 4 of the 10 books, typically with their relevance to women’s rights noted. For example, King (2011) noted, “In the United States, sexual harassment is an illegal form of sexual discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (p. 479). Wade and Tavris (2011) wrote about attitudes toward abortion reflecting “your premises about when meaningful human life begins, what rights an embryo has, and what rights a woman has to control her own body” (p. 315).

In summary, it is clear that research on the psychology of women and gender is being conveyed to the broader public through these popular introductory psychology text- books. The amount of attention in some texts (e.g., Myers, 2010; Wade & Tavris, 2011) is seemingly generous, in view of the great range of topics covered in such textbooks. Within this considerable coverage, textbook authors some- times presented sex-related differences with little attention to causal interpretations. Because more than one interpre- tation is often plausible, this engaging area of science offers textbook authors the opportunity to contrast relevant theories in ways that can inspire students to think critically.

Conclusion Psychological science has been continually transformed, not only in response to its internal dynamics of discovery and theory development, but also in reaction to the ques- tions posed by social changes ongoing in society. Femi- nism as a social movement thus posed psychological ques- tions about a myriad of aspects of gender, and activists called for research to support social action and legislative and other reforms. Researchers in psychology then rapidly escalated their commitment to research on gender and women. Viewed in raw counts of articles (see Figure 1), this growth has continued unabated. Viewed relative to the growth in all research on human psychology (see Figure 2), gender research peaked in the late 1970s, reflecting the period of maximum feminist activism, and peaked again around 2000. This second peak and the continuing popu- larity of gender research suggest that, although feminism planted the seeds of this research by asking provocative questions, these seeds took root and yielded long-termTa

b le

1 Re

pr es

en ta

tio n

of th

e Ps

yc ho

lo gy

of G

en de

r an

d W

om en

an d

Si x

Pr ot

ot yp

ic al

To pi

cs in

Po pu

la r

In tro

du ct

or y

Ps yc

ho lo

gy Te

xt bo

ok s

A ut

ho rs

an d

da te

C ha

pt er

on ge

nd er

N o.

/t ot

al pa

ge s

[% ]c

on ta

in in

g ba

si c

ge nd

er or

w om

en co

nc ep

ts

N o.

of pa

ge s

co nt

ai ni

ng th

es e

pr ot

ot yp

ic al

to pi

cs

G en

de r

ste re

ot yp

es an

d se

x ro

le at

tit ud

es G

en de

r an

d de

pr es

si on

W or

k– fa

m ily

is su

es In

tim at

e pa

rtn er

vi ol

en ce

A bo

rti on

Se xu

al ha

ra ss

m en

t

C oo

n &

M itt

er er

(2 01

0) ye

s 11

9/ 57

1 [2

0. 8[

17 2

0 3

1 0

Fe ld

m an

(2 01

1) ye

s 10

5/ 54

7 [1

9. 2]

14 2

2 4

0 2

H oc

ke nb

ur y

& H

oc ke

nb ur

y (2

01 0)

ye s

13 2/

60 8

[2 1.

7] 19

1 4

2 0

0 H

uf fm

an (2

00 8)

ye s

10 7/

53 2

[2 0.

1] 20

4 1

1 0

0 Ka

la t(

20 11

) no

10 9/

53 8

[2 0.

3] 5

2 1

1 0

1 Ki

ng (2

01 1)

no 12

0/ 52

3 [2

2. 9]

14 4

0 3

0 3

M ye

rs (2

01 0)

no 18

0/ 65

6 [2

7. 4]

18 8

4 7

2 0

Sc ha

ct er

et al

.( 20

11 )

no 79

/5 94

[1 3.

3] 4

3 1

1 0

0 W

ad e

& Ta

vr is

(2 01

1) no

13 1/

57 2

[2 2.

9] 23

8 4

6 3

1 W

ei te

n (2

01 0)

no 13

1/ 65

9 [1

9. 9]

8 4

0 3

2 0

M (S

D )

20 .9

(3 .6

) 14

.2 (6

.5 )

3. 8

(2 .4

) 1.

7 (1

.7 )

3. 1

(2 .1

) 0.

8 (1

.1 )

0. 7

(1 .1

)

224 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

scientific investment. This attention on the part of many researchers effectively transformed the content of psycho- logical research in a half-century that saw momentous social change affecting gender relations. Moreover, consis- tent with greater change in the social roles of women than men, the psychology of women has received a greater amount of explicit scientific attention than the psychology of men.

As our analyses show, the psychology of gender and women has been investigated within many specific research areas and is not especially concentrated into gender-spe- cialty journals. It has attained at least moderate represen- tation in psychology’s core research journals as well as variable amounts of inclusion in introductory psychology textbooks. This scholarship has thus moved from its tenta- tive beginnings on the margins of psychology in the 1960s to its secure place among other central emphases of con- temporary psychological science.

Most of the analyses that we present in this article are dependent on the superb shared resource of PsycNET, which is maintained by an expert staff employed by the American Psychological Association. Therefore, the clas- sifications of articles that we have reported and cumulated are at root the product of human judgments by these indi- viduals, who inspect each document that appears in PsycINFO. Human judgment is of course subject to biases, but we find it difficult to develop hypotheses about biases of the PsycINFO staff, who are highly motivated to be accurate. Moreover, the results of their classification deci- sions are public and can be inspected at any moment by authors and anyone else with access to the database. Also, in contrast to most other research based on coding, these classifications are independent of the authors of any article in which they are cited.

To summarize our views about the history of research on gender and women, we believe that this research gained from feminist ideology but has escaped its boundaries. In this garden, many flowers have bloomed, including some flowers not widely admired by some feminist psycholo- gists. Many, if not most, psychologists who self-identify as feminist researchers continue to endorse a focus on situa- tional causation, as Weisstein (1968) advocated. For exam- ple, Greene (2010, p. 445) wrote, “In feminist psychology . . . there is an explicit mandate to situate behavior in a social context of power differentials and to not treat it as an entity that occurs in isolation or as a defect in the person.” However, without necessarily abandoning this emphasis, the psychology of gender and women has broadened to include a wide range of variables that are not situational, although they can of course be influenced by situational factors. Popular emphases now include hormonal pro- cesses, encompassing their organizational and activational effects (Haselton, Mortezaie, Pillsworth, Bleske-Rechek, & Frederick, 2007; Hines, 2009; Jordan-Young, 2010; Taylor & Master, 2011), cognitive and affective processes (e.g., Roberts & Pennebaker, 1995; Shields, 2005), temperament and personality (e.g., Costa et al., 2001; Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006), and cognitive and other abilities (Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010; Halpern et al.,

2007). Increasingly, gender researchers have realized that understanding the intertwining of nature and nurture through which gender phenomena emerge requires a large tool kit of psychological and biological variables (Wood & Eagly, 2010).

Although some feminist researchers continue to be ambivalent about research that compares the sexes (e.g., Marecek, 2001), many have come to appreciate the effect- size continua that have largely replaced traditional differ- ence–similarity labeling and to understand the scientific yield of this research (e.g., Hyde, 2005; Hyde & Grabe, 2008). Other feminists have called for framing this research in terms of the traditional feminist emphasis on social context, considered at the interpersonal, organizational, and societal levels of analysis (Yoder & Kahn, 2003). Further- ing interest in the comparative method are the 299 meta- analyses pertaining to sex comparisons (1978–2009) that are cataloged in PsycINFO. In addition, heightened enthu- siasm for sex-comparison research has emerged among feminist advocates for women’s health who argue that sex differences have been wrongly ignored in medical research, treatment, and social policy (Epstein, 2009), including re- search on mental health (Sigmon et al., 2007). In response to this neglect, the Society for Women’s Health Research founded the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences, which “works to enhance the knowledge of sex/gender differences by facilitating interdisciplinary communication and collaboration among scientists and clinicians of diverse backgrounds” (Organization for the Study of Sex Differ- ences, n.d.).

Feminist psychologists generally maintain that re- search should contribute to social action and social justice as well as to knowledge (e.g., Riger, 1992). From this perspective, the discipline of psychology would potentially transform society to produce gender equality (Kahn & Yoder, 1989). Although imagining a single academic dis- cipline as the critical engine of social change suggests a certain hubris concerning the power of this one branch of knowledge, psychological science has surely contributed to gender equality on many fronts. An analysis of these ef- fects is beyond the scope of this article, but we note a few examples.

Consider the successful use of psychological research on gender stereotypes in court cases on employment dis- crimination (e.g., Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, & Hei- lman, 1993). Research on work–family issues has served as the basis for progressive changes in organizational person- nel policies (e.g., Bailyn, 2006). Also, psychological re- search has been the lynchpin in several U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding reproductive rights. For instance, in the case of Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986), a research-based amicus brief by the American Psychological Association (Bersoff, Mal- son, & Ennis, 1985) helped to overturn the Pennsylvania state law that required physicians to inform women con- templating an abortion of potential detrimental physical and psychological effects. Similarly, research on sexual harassment has been influential in a variety of contexts, including court cases and the formulation of government

225April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

regulations (see Greathouse, Levett, & Kovera, 2009). Re- search establishing women’s progressive and effective leadership styles has been widely distributed in advocacy efforts to improve women’s access to corporate leadership positions (e.g., Desvaux, Devillard-Hoellinger, & Baum- garten, 2007).

Providing context for the changes in the content of psychological science documented in this article is the spectacular change in the sex composition of psychology in the United States. In 1960, women constituted 17.5% of PhDs awarded in psychology (Burrelli, 2008) and in 2009, 75.4% of PhDs and 78.8% of PsyDs (Michalski, Kohout, Wicherski, & Hart, 2011). Also, in 1977, the earliest year for which faculty data are available, women constituted 20.5% of full-time tenured or tenure-track psychology faculty in colleges or universities, compared with 46.2% of these faculty in 2006 (Burrelli, 2008), including 44.8% of faculty in graduate departments of psychology in 2009 (Wicherski, Mulvey, Hart, & Ko- hout, 2011). Although the women who now populate psychology have not necessarily achieved equality with their male counterparts in status and monetary compen- sation (see Kite et al., 2001), the demographic change in the discipline is very great. Just as feminists have ac- cused the men who once dominated psychological re- search of ignoring gender and studying “topics of inter- est to themselves” (Chrisler & McHugh, 2011, p. 37), a portion of the women who are now very well represented in research not surprisingly have favored, among their many interests, topics of special importance to women (Eagly, in press). These women, together with those men who have also addressed the psychology of women and gender, have produced a psychology that encompasses understanding of the mind and behavior of both sexes, clearly a major advance for psychological science.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. E., & Tschann, J. M. (1993). The abortion debate: Psychological issues for adult women and adolescents. In S. M. Matteo (Ed.), Amer- ican women in the nineties: Today’s critical issues (pp. 193–212). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

American Psychological Association. (2011). APA PsycNET: Thesaurus of psychological index terms. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/ index.cfm?fa�termfinder.displayTerms

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). The PsycINFO content clas- sification code system. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/ databases/training/class-codes.pdf

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651– 680. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651

Baiden, F. (2009). Making safe abortion services accessible in Ghana. Journal of Women’s Health, 18, 1923–1924. doi:10.1089/jwh.2009.1689

Bailyn, L. (2006). Breaking the mold: Redesigning work for productive and satisfying lives (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and commu- nion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.781

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. doi:10.1037/0033-295X .88.4.354

Benin, M. H., & Edwards, D. A. (1990). Adolescents’ chores: The

difference between dual- and single-earner families. Journal of Mar- riage & the Family, 52, 361–373. doi:10.2307/353032

Bersoff, D. N., Malson, L. P., & Ennis, B. J. (1985). In the Supreme Court of the United States: Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Brief of amicus curiae, American Psychological Association in support of appellees (No. 84-495). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycextra/516862006-001.pdf

Bettelheim, B. (1965). The commitment required of a woman entering a scientific profession in present-day American society. In U. S. Mattfield & C. G. Van Aken (Eds.), Women and the scientific professions (MIT Symposium on American Women in Science and Engineering). Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Biernat, M., & Deaux, K. (2012). A history of social psychological research on gender. In A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Hand- book of the history of social psychology (pp. 475–498). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Blakemore, J. E. O., Berenbaum, S. A., & Liben, L. S. (2009). Gender development. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Blau, F. D., Brinton, M. C., & Grusky, D. B. (Eds.). (2006). The declining significance of gender? New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bowker. (2010). Bowker pubtrack sales analysis (higher education): College textbook national market report. New Providence, NJ: Author.

Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59–78. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972 .tb00018.x

Burrelli, J. (2008). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http:// www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08308/nsf08308.pdf

Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of gender development and functioning. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 92–119). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Chassin, L., Zeiss, A., Cooper, K. M., & Reaven, J. (1985). Role percep- tions, self-role congruence and marital satisfaction in dual-worker cou- ples with preschool children. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 301– 311. doi:10.2307/2786692

Chrisler, J. C., & McHugh, M. C. (2011). Waves of feminist psychology in the United States: Politics and perspectives. In A. Rutherford, R. Capdevila, I. Palmary, & V. Undurti (Eds.), Handbook of international feminisms: Perspectives on psychology, women, culture, and rights (pp. 37–58). New York, NY: Springer.

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. doi:10.1037/a0014564

Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (2010). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behavior (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). Expectation states theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Crawford, M., & Marecek, J. (1989). Psychology reconstructs the female: 1968–1988. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 147–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1989.tb00993.x

Crosby, F. J., Williams, J. C., & Biernat, M. (2004). The maternal wall. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 675–682. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537 .2004.00379.x

Cyranowski, J. M., & Frank, E. (2006). Targeting populations of women for prevention and treatment of depression. In C. Mazure & G. P. Keita (Eds.), Understanding depression in women: Applying empirical re- search to practice and policy (pp. 71–112). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cyranowski, J. M., Frank, E., Young, E., & Shear, K. (2000). Adolescent onset of the gender difference in lifetime rates of major depression: A theoretical model. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 21–27. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.57.1.21

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (1st ed.). London, England: John Murray.

226 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interac- tive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369– 389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369

Desvaux, G., Devillard-Hoellinger, S., & Baumgarten, P. (2007). Women matter: Gender diversity, a corporate performance driver. Paris, France: McKinsey & Company.

Eagly, A. H. (in press). Science, feminism, and the psychology of inves- tigating gender. In R. W. Proctor & E. J. Capaldi (Eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex Roles, 64, 758–767. doi:10.1007/ s11199-011-9949-9

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458–476). London, England: Sage Publications.

Eley, T. C., Sugden, K., Corsico, A., Gregory, A. M., Sham, P., McGuffin, P., . . . Craig, I. W. (2004). Gene-environment interaction analysis of serotonin system markers with adolescent depression. Molecular Psy- chiatry, 9, 908–915. doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001546

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 132, 33–72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psy- chological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/a0018053

England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24, 149–166. doi:10.1177/0891243210361475

Epstein, S. (2009). Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical re- search. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Feldman, R. S. (2011). Understanding psychology (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Feminism. (2007). In American Heritage dictionary of the English lan- guage (4th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com.turing .library.northwestern.edu/search.do?query�feminism&subject�all& scope�title&title�502&view�facet

Fine, M., & Gordon, S. M. (1989). Feminist transformations of/despite psychology. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 146–174). New York, NY: Springer- Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3588-0_8

Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1993). Accuracy and objectivity on behalf of the APA. American Psychologist, 48, 55–56. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.55

Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48, 1070–1076. doi:10.1037/ 0003-066X.48.10.1070

Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: Norton. Frieze, I. H. (2008). Social policy, feminism, and research on violence in

close relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 665–684. doi:10.1111/ j.1540-4560.2008.00583.x

Galinsky, E., & Stein, P. J. (1990). The impact of human resource policies on employees: Balancing work/family life. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 368–383. doi:10.1177/019251390011004002

Gangestad, S., & Simpson, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). The evolution of mind: Funda- mental questions and controversies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Gergen, M. M. (2000). Feminism: Feminist psychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 350–354). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gillis, S., Howie, G., & Munford, R. (Eds.). (2007). Third wave feminism: A critical exploration (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230593664

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psy- chologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109

Goldberg, W. A., Prause, J., Lucas-Thompson, R., & Himsel, A. (2008). Maternal employment and children’s achievement in context: A meta- analysis of four decades of research. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 77–108. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.77

Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typol- ogy of batterers. Violence and Victims, 3, 187–203.

Gove, W. R., & Tudor, J. F. (1973). Adult sex roles and mental illness. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 812–835. doi:10.1086/225404

Gowaty, P. A. (2003). Sexual natures: How feminism changed evolution- ary biology. Signs, 28, 901–921. doi:10.1086/345324

Grabe, S., Hyde, J. S., & Lindberg, S. M. (2007). Body objectification and depression in adolescents: The role of gender, shame, and rumination. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 164–175. doi:10.1111/j.1471- 6402.2007.00350.x

Greathouse, S. M., Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Sexual harassment: Antecedents, consequences, and juror decisions. In D. A. Krauss & J. D. Lieberman (Eds.), Psychological expertise in court: Psychology in the court- room (Vol. 2, pp. 151–174). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Greene, B. (2010). 2009 Carolyn Wood Sherif Award Address: Riding Trojan horses from symbolism to structural change: In feminist psy- chology, context matters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 443– 457. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01594.x

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625

Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 55–74. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01910.x

Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbache, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1–51. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x

Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender differences in depression: An elaborated cognitive vulnerability–trans- actional stress theory. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 773–796. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.773

Haselton, M. G., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E. G., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. A. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamenta- tion: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 40–45. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.07.007

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X0999152X

Hill, C., & Silva, E. (2005). Drawing the line: Sexual harassment on campus. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/learn/ research/upload/DTLFinal.pdf

Hines, M. (2009). Gonadal hormones and sexual differentiation of human brain and behavior. In D. W. Pfaff, A. P. Arnold, A. M. Etgen, S. E. Fahrbach, & R. T. Rubin (Eds.), Hormones, brain and behavior (2nd ed., pp. 1869–1909). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier/Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-008088783-8.00059-0

Hockenbury, D. H., & Hockenbury, S. E. (2010). Psychology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1914). Variability as related to sex differences in achievement. American Journal of Sociology, 19, 510–530. doi: 10.1086/212287

Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Huffman, K. (2008). Psychology in action (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychol-

ogist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581 Hyde, J. S., & Grabe, S. (2008). Meta-analysis in the psychology of

women. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (2nd ed., pp. 142–173). Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood.

Hyde, J. S., Mezulis, A. H., & Abramson, L. Y. (2008). The ABCs of depression: Integrating affective, biological, and cognitive models to explain the emergence of the gender difference in depression. Psycho- logical Review, 115, 291–313. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.291

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple vio- lence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 57, 283–294. doi:10.2307/353683

Jones, B. S., & Weitz, T. A. (2009). Legal barriers to second-trimester

227April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

abortion provision and public health consequences. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 623–630. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.127530

Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brainstorm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54–78. doi:10.1037/a0017286

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and uncon- scious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x

Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and dif- fuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498

Kahn, A. S., & Yoder, J. D. (1989). The psychology of women and conservatism: Rediscovering social change. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 417–432. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1989.tb01011.x

Kalat, J. L. (2011). Introduction to psychology (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kendler, K. S., Kuhn, J. W., & Prescott, C. A. (2004). Childhood sexual abuse, stressful life events and risk for major depression in women. Psychological Medicine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the Allied Sciences, 34, 1475–1482. doi:10.1017/S003329170400265X

Kendler, K. S., Neale, M. C., Kessler, R. C., Heath, A. C., & Eaves, L. J. (1993). A longitudinal twin study of personality and major depression in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 853–862. doi:10.1001/ archpsyc.1993.01820230023002

King, L. (2011). The science of psychology: An appreciative view (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kite, M. E., Russo, N. F., Brehm, S. S., Fouad, N. A., Hall, C. C. I., Hyde, J. S., & Keita, G. P. (2001). Women psychologists in academe: Mixed progress, unwarranted complacency. American Psychologist, 56, 1080– 1098. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.12.1080

Koss, M. P., Bailey, J. A., Yuan, N. P., Herrera, V. M., & Lichter, E. L. (2003). Depression and PTSD in survivors of male violence: Research and training initiatives to facilitate recovery. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 130–142. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00093

Landrine, H., & Russo, N. F. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of diversity in feminist psychology. New York, NY: Springer.

Lee, I., & Crawford, M. (2007). Lesbians and bisexual women in the eyes of scientific psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 17, 109–127. doi: 10.1177/0959353507073096

Littman, L. L., Zarcadoolas, C., & Jacobs, A. R. (2009). Introducing abortion patients to a culture of support: A pilot study. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 12, 419–431. doi:10.1007/s00737-009-0095-0

Loerch, K. J., Russell, J. E., & Rush, M. C. (1989). The relationships among family domain variables and work-family conflict for men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 288–308. doi:10.1016/ 0001-8791(89)90031-6

Lott, B., & Bullock, H. E. (2007). Psychology and economic injustice: Personal, professional, and political intersections. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11501-000

Maccoby, E. E. (Ed.). (1966). The development of sex differences. Stan- ford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Major, B., Appelbaum, M., Beckman, L., Dutton, M., Russo, N. F., & West, C. (2009). Abortion and mental health: Evaluating the evidence. American Psychologist, 64, 863–890. doi:10.1037/a0017497

Mansbridge, J. J. (1986). Why we lost the ERA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Marecek, J. (2001). After the facts: Psychology and the study of gender. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 42, 254–267. doi: 10.1037/h0086894

Marecek, J., Kimmel, E. B., Crawford, M., & Hare-Mustin, R. T. (2003). Psychology of women and gender. In D. K. Freedheim (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 249–268). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi:10.1002/ 0471264385.wei0112

Martin, D. (1976). Battered wives. San Francisco, CA: Glide Publications. Martin, T. W., Berry, K. J., & Jacobsen, R. B. (1975). The impact of

dual-career marriages on female professional careers: An empirical test of a Parsonian hypothesis. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 37, 734–742. doi:10.2307/350824

McHugh, M. C. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner abuse. Sex Roles, 52, 717–724. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-4194-8

McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00097.x

McHugh, M. C., Koeske, R. D., & Frieze, I. H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research: A guide for research- ers. American Psychologist, 41, 879–890. doi:10.1037/0003-066X .41.8.879

McHugh, M. C., Livingston, N. A., & Ford, A. (2005). A postmodern approach to women’s use of violence: Developing multiple and com- plex conceptualizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 323–336. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00226.x

Michalski, D., Kohout, J., Wicherski, M., & Hart, J. (2011). 2009 doc- torate employment survey. Washington, DC: American Psychologi- cal Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/workforce/ publications/09-doc-empl/index.aspx

Miles, C. (1935). Sex in social psychology. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 683–797). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Myers, D. G. (2010). Psychology (9th ed.). New York, NY: Worth. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of education

statistics: 2010 (Table 282). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences. Retrieved from http:// nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/

Nguyen, H.-H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of exper- imental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334. doi:10.1037/a0012702

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Ev- idence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259–282. doi:10.1037/ 0033-2909.101.2.259

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 424–443. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.424

Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 923–936. doi:10.1177/0146167210371949

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bates, C. A., & Lean, E. R. (2009). Sexual harassment at work: A decade (plus) of progress. Jour- nal of Management, 35, 503–536. doi:10.1177/0149206308330555

Organization for the Study of Sex Differences. (n.d.). About OSSD. Retrieved from http://www.womenshealthresearch.org/site/PageServer?pagename� ossd_about

Pfeiffer, E. (1970). Psychiatric indications or psychiatric justification of therapeutic abortion? Archives of General Psychiatry, 23, 402–407. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1970.01750050018003

Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. (2006). The cognitive revolution at age 50: Has the promise of the human information-processing approach been fulfilled? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 21, 253–284. doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc2103_1

Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269–290. doi:10.1007/BF00288453

Radloff, L. S. (1975). Sex differences in depression: The effects of occupation and marital status. Sex Roles, 1, 249–265. doi:10.1007/ BF00287373

Raver, C. C. (2003). Does work pay psychologically as well as econom- ically? The role of employment in predicting depressive symptoms and parenting among low-income families. Child Development, 74, 1720– 1736. doi:10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00634.x

Reid, P. T. (1993). Poor women in psychological research: Shut up and shut out. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 133–150. doi:10.1111/ j.1471-6402.1993.tb00440.x

Ridgeway, C. L., & Bourg, C. (2004). Gender as status: An expectation states theory approach. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 217–241). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Riger, S. (1991). Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies and procedures. American Psychologist, 46, 497–505. doi:10.1037/0003- 066X.46.5.497

Riger, S. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices: Science, social

228 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

values, and the study of women. American Psychologist, 47, 730–740. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.6.730

Roberts, T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1995). Gender differences in perceiving internal state: Toward a his-and-hers model of perceptual cue use. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 143–175). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065- 2601(08)60405-02

Rosen, R. A. H., Werley, H. H., Ager, J. W., & Shea, F. P. (1974). Health professionals’ attitudes toward abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, 159–173. doi:10.1086/268149

Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157

Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and in- group share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle- tin, 27, 1164–1178. doi:10.1177/0146167201279009

Rutherford, A., & Granek, L. (2010). Emergence and development of the psychology of women. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 19–41). New York, NY: Springer Science � Business Media.

Sanchez, L. (1994). Gender, labor allocations, and the psychology of entitlement within the home. Social Forces, 73, 533–553. doi:10.2307/ 2579820

Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Introducing psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

Schmitt, M. T., Spoor, J. R., Danaher, K., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). Rose-colored glasses: How tokenism and comparisons with the past reduce the visibility of gender inequality. In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Under- standing barriers to gender equality (pp. 49–71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11863-003

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Sherif, C. (1979). Bias in psychology. In J. A. Sherman & E. T. Beck (Eds.), The prism of sex: Essays in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 92–133). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Shields, S. A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women. American Psychologist, 30, 739–754. doi:10.1037/h0076948

Shields, S. A. (2005). The politics of emotion in everyday life: “Appro- priate” emotion and claims on identity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 3–15. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.1.3

Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8

Shih, J. H., Eberhart, N. K., Hammen, C. L., & Brennan, P. A. (2006). Differential exposure and reactivity to interpersonal stress predict sex differences in adolescent depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Ado- lescent Psychology, 35, 103–115. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3501_9

Shrage, L. (1994). Moral dilemmas of feminism: Prostitution, adultery, and abortion. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sigmon, S. T., Pells, J., Edenfield, T. M., Hermann, B. A., Schartel, J. G., LaMattina, S. M., & Boulard, N. E. (2007). Are we there yet? A review of gender comparisons in three behavioral journals through the 20th century. Behavior Therapy, 38, 333–339. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2006 .10.003

Smith, C. A., & Konik, J. (2011). Feminism and evolutionary psychology [Special issue]. Sex Roles, 64(9–10).

Smyth, L. (2002). Feminism and abortion politics: Choice, rights, and reproductive freedom. Women’s Studies International Forum, 25, 335– 345. doi:10.1016/S0277-5395(02)00256-X

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2(Ms. No. 153).

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and identity threat. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379– 440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and

racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199

Tajfel, H. (1978). The social psychology of minorities. London, England: Minority Rights Group.

Tangri, S. S., Burt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 33–54. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01909.x

Taylor, S. E., & Master, S. L. (2011). Social responses to stress: The tend-and-befriend model. In R. J. Contrada & A. Baum (Eds.), The handbook of stress science: Biology, psychology, and health (pp. 101– 109). New York, NY: Springer.

Thomson Reuters. (2009). Journal citation reports: Quick reference card. Retrieved from http://thomsonreuters.com/content/science/pdf/ssr/ training/qrc_jcr_april_09.pdf

Thomson Reuters. (2011). Journal citation reports, 2009 edition. Re- trieved from http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/

Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986).

Timmerman, G., & Bajema, C. (2000). The impact of organizational culture on perceptions and experiences of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 188–205. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1741

Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C. J. (1999). Comparing violence over the life span in samples of same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants. Violence and Victims, 14, 413–425.

Torges, C. M., Stewart, A. J., & Duncan, L. E. (2008). Achieving ego integrity: Personality development in late midlife. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1004–1019. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.006

Torrey, J. W. (1979). Racism and feminism: Is women’s liberation for Whites only? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 281–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1979.tb00716.x

Travis, C. B. (Ed.). (2003). Evolution, gender, and rape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Women in the labor force: A databook (2010 ed.). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/ wlf-databook2010.htm

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1995). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Trends, progress, continuing challenges. Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http:// www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber 26253661&version� 253948&application�ACROBAT

Vandell, D. L., & Ramanan, J. (1992). Effects of early and recent maternal employment on children from low-income families. Child Develop- ment, 63, 938–949. doi:10.2307/1131245

Vandermassen, G. (2011). Evolution and rape: A feminist Darwinian perspective. Sex Roles, 64, 732–747. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9895-y

van Steenbergen, E. F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Is managing the work- family interface worthwhile? Benefits for employee health and perfor- mance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 617–642. doi:10.1002/ job.569

van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integra- tive social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bul- letin, 134, 504–535. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504

Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (2011). Invitation to psychology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Weisstein, N. (1968). Kinder, Kirche, Kuche as scientific law: Psychology

constructs the female. Boston, MA: New England Press. Weisstein, N. (1971). Psychology constructs the female; or, the fantasy

life of the male psychologist (with some attention to the fantasies of his friends, the male biologist and the male anthropologist). Journal of Social Education, 35, 362–373. doi:10.1177/0959353593032005

Weiten, W. (2010). Psychology: Themes and variations (8th ed.). Bel- mont, CA: Wadsworth.

Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psy- chology Review, 19, 435–456. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00091-9

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002

Wicherski, M., Mulvey, T., Hart, B., & Kohout, J. (2011). 2010–2011 faculty salaries in graduate departments of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

229April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 629–667). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Woolley, H. T. (1910). Psychological literature: A review of the recent

literature on the psychology of sex. Psychological Bulletin, 7, 335–342. doi:10.1037/h0066338

Wright, C. V., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2009). Correlates of joining a sexual harassment class action. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 265–282. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9156-6

Yoder, J. D., & Kahn, A. S. (2003). Making gender comparisons more meaningful: A call for more attention to social context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 281–290. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00108

230 April 2012 ● American Psychologist

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .