Discussion Post Response

Gender

Gender: Psychological Perspectives synthesizes the latest research on gender to help students think critically about the differences between research fi ndings and stereotypes, provoking them to examine and revise their own preconceptions. The text examines the behavioral, biological, and social contexts in which women and men express gendered behaviors. The text’s unique pedagogical program helps students understand the portrayal of gender in the media and the application of gender research in the real world. Headlines from the news open each chapter to engage the reader. Gendered Voices boxes present true personal accounts of people’s lives. According to the Media boxes highlight gender-related coverage in newspapers, magazines, books, TV, and movies, while According to the Research boxes offer the latest scientifi cally based research to help students analyze the accuracy and fairness of gender images presented in the media. Additionally, Considering Diversity sections emphasize the cross-cultural perspective of gender.

This text is intended for undergraduate or graduate courses on the psychology of gender, psychology of sex, psychology of women or men, gender issues, sex roles, women in society, and women’s or men’s studies. It is also applicable to sociology and anthropology courses on diversity.

Seventh Edition Highlights

• 12 new headlines on topics ranging from gender and the Flynn effect to gender ste- reotyping that affects men

• Coverage of gender issues in aging adults and transgendered individuals • Expanded coverage of diversity issues in the US and around the globe, including the

latest research from China, Japan, and Europe • More tables, fi gures, and photos to provide summaries of text in an easy-to-absorb

format • End-of-chapter summaries and glossary • Suggested readings for further exploration of chapter topics • A companion website at www.routledge.com/cw/Brannon where instructors will fi nd

lecture outlines, PowerPoint slides, student activities, test questions, and website and video suggestions; and students will fi nd fl ashcards, student learner objectives, chapter outlines, and links to related websites and further reading

Linda Brannon is Professor of Psychology at McNeese State University in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

“Gender is a very important contribution to the study of gender in psychology. Its innovative format and unique organization provide for an enjoyable learning experience for students of psychology.”

—Florence L. Denmark, Pace University

“Gender strikes the perfect balance between biological and social factors that inform the psychology of gender. Even more importantly, this text is solidly based on scientifi c research fi ndings rather than venturing into the minefi eld of gender politics.”

—Linda Heath, Loyola University Chicago

“Gender provides a readable review of both classic and recent research on gender. Linda Brannon is consistently balanced and empirical in her stance, and original in the way she threads varied topics together to give the reader a comprehensive and nuanced understand- ing of gender.”

—Maureen C. McHugh, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

“Gender thoroughly covers the latest research on traditional topics, such as relationships and sexuality, and clearly presents newer topics such as homosexuality, transsexuals, and sexual abuse. Excellent for psychology and sociology courses.”

—Nancy Netting, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Canada

“I have been happily using Gender for many editions now, and defi nitely plan to continue having seen the same excellent writing, research foundation, and easy-to-follow organization in the seventh edition. My students like this text; I highly recommend it.”

—Karen J. Prager, The University of Texas at Dallas

Gender Psychological Perspectives

Seventh Edition

Linda Brannon

Seventh edition published 2017 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2017 Taylor & Francis

The right of Linda Brannon to be identifi ed as the author of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe.

First published 1996 by Allyn and Bacon

Sixth edition published 2010 by Psychology Press

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Brannon, Linda, 1948– author. Title: Gender : psychological perspectives / Linda Brannon. Description: Seventh Edition. | New York : Routledge, 2017. | Revised edition of the

author’s Gender, 2015. Identifi ers: LCCN 2016046499 | ISBN 9781138182356 (hardback : alk. paper) |

ISBN 9781138182349 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315621821 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Sex differences (Psychology)—Textbooks. | Gender

identity—Textbooks. Classifi cation: LCC BF692.2 .B73 2017 | DDC 155.3—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016046499

ISBN: 978-1-138-18235-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-18234-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-62182-1 (ebk)

Typeset in Garamond by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Preface xv Acknowledgments xx About the Author xxi

1 The Study of Gender 1

2 Researching Sex and Gender 22

3 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity 46

4 Hormones and Chromosomes 77

5 Theories of Gender Development 109

6 Developing Gender Identity 136

7 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 170

8 Emotion 201

9 Relationships 235

10 Sexuality 280

11 School 324

12 Careers and Work 355

13 Health and Fitness 390

14 Stress, Coping, and Psychopathology 429

Brief Contents

vi Brief Contents

15 Treatment for Mental Disorders 468

16 How Different? 499

Index 521

Preface xv Acknowledgments xx About the Author xxi

1 The Study of Gender 1

Headline: “The End of Men,” Atlantic Monthly , July/August, 2010 1 History of the Study of Sex Differences in Psychology 3

The Study of Individual Differences 4 Psychoanalysis 4

The Development of Women’s Studies 6 The History of Feminist Movements 6 Sex or Gender? 9 Women in Psychology 10 The Appearance of the Men’s Movement 12

Considering Diversity 15 Summary 17 Glossary 18 Suggested Readings 18 Suggested Websites 19 References 19

2 Researching Sex and Gender 22

Headline: “Does Gender Matter?” Nature, July 13, 2006 22 How Science Developed 22 Approaches to Research 24

Quantitative Research Methods 24 Experimental Designs 25 Ex Post Facto Studies 26 Surveys 27 Correlational Studies 28

Qualitative Research Methods 29 Interviews 29 Ethnography 30 Focus Groups 30

Contents

viii Contents

Researchers’ Choices 31 Gender Bias in Research 32

Sources of Bias 32 Ways to Deal with Bias in Science 37

Advocating Transformation 38 Decreasing Bias 39

Summary 40 Glossary 41 Suggested Readings 42 Suggested Websites 42 References 42

3 Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity 46

Headline: “Gender Stereotypes Don’t Die Easily” Vancouver Sun, June 27, 2013 46 History of Stereotypes of Women and Men 46

The Cult of True Womanhood 47 Masculinities 48

Conceptualizing and Measuring Masculinity and Femininity 50 Explicit Measures of Stereotyping 50 Implicit Measures of Stereotyping 52

The Process and Implications of Stereotyping 53 Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination 53 Perceptions of Women and Men 54 Stereotypes over the Lifespan 59 Negative Effects of Stereotyping 61

Stereotype Threat 61 Benevolent Sexism 64

Considering Diversity 65 Summary 68 Glossary 69 Suggested Readings 69 Suggested Websites 70 References 70

4 Hormones and Chromosomes 77

Headline: “Venus and Mars Collide” New Scientist, March 5, 2011 77 The Endocrine System and Steroid Hormones 77 Sexual Differentiation 79

Chromosomes 79 Prenatal Development of Male and Female Physiology 79

The Reproductive Organs 79 The Nervous System 82

Changes during Puberty 83 Changes during Adulthood 85 Variations in Sexual Development 86

Contents ix

Variations in Number of Sex Chromosomes 86 Problems Related to Prenatal Hormone Exposure 88

Hormones and Behavior Instability 90 Premenstrual Syndrome 90 Testosterone and Aggression 96

Considering Diversity 99 Summary 100 Glossary 102 Suggested Readings 103 Suggested Websites 103 References 103

5 Theories of Gender Development 109

Headline: “Code Pink” Mother Jones , September/October, 2009 109 The Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 110

Freud’s View of Gender Identity Development 110 Horney’s Theory of Gender 111 Contemporary Psychodynamic Theories of Gender Development 113

Chodorow’s Emphasis on Mothering 113 Kaschak’s Antigone Phase 115

Social Learning Theory and Gender 116 Cognitive Theories of Gender Development 123

Cognitive Developmental Theory 123 Gender Schema Theory 126

Which Theory is Best? 127 Summary 130 Glossary 131 Suggested Readings 131 Suggested Websites 132 References 132

6 Developing Gender Identity 136

Headline: “A Boy’s Life” The Atlantic , November 2008 136 Gender Identity Development 136

Development during Childhood 137 The Sequence of Childhood Gender Role Development 138 Differences between Girls and Boys 140

Later Development 141 Infl uences on Gender Identity Development 145

Biological Factors and Gender Development 145 Family Environment and Gender Development 148 Peers and Gender Development 151 The Media and Gender Development 152

Gender Bias in the Media 153 Children and Media 155

x Contents

Considering Diversity 157 Summary 159 Glossary 160 Suggested Readings 160 Suggested Websites 161 References 161

7 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 170

Headline: “Is the Female of the Species Really More Intelligent Than the Male?” The Telegraph , July 17, 2012 170

Cognitive Abilities 170 Verbal Performance 173 Mathematical and Quantitative Performance 174 Spatial Performance 178 Other Cognitive Abilities 182

Source of the Differences 186 Biological Evidence for Gender Differences in Cognitive Abilities 186 Evidence for Other Sources of Gender Differences 188

Implications of Gender-Related Differences 189 Considering Diversity 191 Summary 192 Glossary 193 Suggested Readings 193 Suggested Websites 193 References 194

8 Emotion 201

Headline: “Do Get Mad” New Scientist , February 9, 2013 201 Gender in the Experience and Expression of Emotion 201

The Myth of Maternal Instinct 204 Maternal Deprivation and Its Consequences for Nurturing 204 Gender and Caring for Children 206

The Prominence of Male Aggression 209 Anger and Aggression 210 Developmental Gender Differences in Aggression 211 Gender and Aggression during Adulthood 214 Gender and Crime 215 Sexual Violence 219

Expressivity and Emotion 222 Considering Diversity 224 Summary 225 Glossary 226 Suggested Readings 227 Suggested Websites 227 References 227

Contents xi

9 Relationships 235

Headline: “The New Rules of Dating” Men’s Fitness , February, 2013 235 Friendships 236

Development of Styles 236 Friendships over the Lifespan 239 Flexibility of Styles 242

Love Relationships 243 Dating 244 Marriage and Committed Relationships 247

Concepts of Love and Marriage 250 Communication between Partners 252 Balance of Power 253 Division of Household Labor 255 Confl ict and Violence 257 Stability of Relationships 259

Dissolving Relationships 261 Considering Diversity 265 Summary 267 Glossary 268 Suggested Readings 268 Suggested Websites 269 References 269

10 Sexuality 280

Headline: “How to End to War over Sex Ed,” Time Atlantic , April 6, 2009 280 The Study of Sexuality 281

Sex Surveys 281 The Kinsey Surveys 281 Hunt’s Playboy Foundation Survey 284 The National Health and Social Life Survey 285 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior 285 Gender Differences (and Similarities) in Sexual Attitudes and Behavior 286

Masters and Johnson’s Approach 289 Childhood Sexuality: Exploration and Abuse 290 Heterosexuality 294

During Adolescence 295 During Adulthood 298

Homosexuality 303 During Adolescence 306 During Adulthood 308

Bisexuality 311 Considering Diversity 312 Summary 313 Glossary 315 Suggested Readings 315

xii Contents

Suggested Websites 316 References 316

11 School 324

Headline: “The Target,” Vanity Fair , April, 2013 324 The School Experience 324

Early Schooling 326 Changes during Middle School 328 High School 330 College and Professional School 335

Achievement 340 Achievement Motivation 340 Fear of Success 341 Self-Esteem and Self-Confi dence 341 Attributions for Success and Failure 344

Considering Diversity 345 Summary 347 Glossary 349 Suggested Readings 349 Suggested Websites 349 References 349

12 Careers and Work 355

Headline: “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby,” Canadian Business, October 13, 2013 355 Careers 355

Career Expectations and Gender Stereotyping 357 Career Opportunities 359

Discrimination in Hiring 360 Barriers to Career Advancement 363 Balancing Career and Family 367

Gender Issues at Work 369 Gender Segregation on the Job 369 Gender, Communication, and Power in the Workplace 371 Sexual Harassment at Work 373

Considering Diversity 377 Summary 380 Glossary 381 Suggested Readings 382 Suggested Websites 382 References 382

13 Health and Fitness 390

Headline: “Ladies Last,” National Geographic, April, 2013 390 Mortality: No Equal Opportunity 390

Cardiovascular Disease 391

Contents xiii

Cancer 393 Violent Deaths 395

The Health Care System 398 Gender Roles and Health Care 398

Gender and Seeking Health Care 398 Gender and Receiving Health Care 399

Reproductive Health 402 Gender and Healthy Aging 405

Gender, Lifestyle, and Health 407 Eating 408

Body Image 409 Eating Disorders 412

Exercise and Fitness 413 Considering Diversity 415 Summary 418 Glossary 420 Suggested Readings 420 Suggested Websites 421 References 421

14 Stress, Coping, and Psychopathology 429

Headline: “White Men Have Less Life Stress, But Are More Prone to Depression Because of It,” Huffi ngton Post , September 23, 2015 429

Stress and Coping 429 Sources of Stress for Men and Women 429

Family Roles 430 Violence 432 Discrimination 433 Poverty 434

Coping Resources and Strategies 435 Social Support 436 Coping Strategies 437

Diagnoses of Mental Disorders 439 The DSM Classifi cation System 439 Gender Inequity in the Diagnosis of Mental Disorders 440

Gender Comparisons in Psychopathology 443 Depression 444 Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders 447 Anxiety Disorders 449 Other Disorders 450

Considering Diversity 454 Summary 456 Glossary 457 Suggested Readings 458 Suggested Websites 458 References 459

xiv Contents

15 Treatment for Mental Disorders 468

Headline: “Colorado Launches Man Therapy to Break Down Mental Health Stigmas” Nation’s Health, October 2012 468

Approaches to Therapy 468 Psychoanalysis 468 Humanistic Therapy 469 Cognitive Therapy 470 Behavior Modifi cation 471 Medical Therapies 472 Accusations of Gender Bias in Therapy 473

Gender Issues in Therapy 475 Feminist Therapy 475

Principles of Feminist Therapy 476 Clients of Feminist Therapy 477

Therapy with Men 478 Gender-Sensitive Therapies 479

Sexual Exploitation in Therapy 481 The Self-Help Movement 484

Online Support Groups 486 Gender Issues in Self-Help 487

Considering Diversity 488 Summary 490 Glossary 491 Suggested Readings 491 Suggested Websites 492 References 492

16 How Different? 499

Headline: “Signs of Détente in the Battle between Venus and Mars,” New York Times, May 31, 2007 499

What do Women Want? What do Men Want? 499 Have Women Become More Like Men? 499 Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? 504

Multiple Roles Have Become the Rule 506 Where Are the Differences? 509

Differences in Ability 510 Differences in Choices 512

Is a Peace Plan Possible? 514 Summary 515 Glossary 516 Suggested Readings 516 Suggested Websites 517 References 517

Index 521

This book examines the topic of gender—the behaviors and attitudes that relate to (but are not the same as) biological sex. A large and growing body of research on sex, gender, and gender-related behaviors has come from psychology, sociology, biology, biochemistry, neurology, and anthropology. This research and scholarship form the basis for this book, providing the material for a critical review and an attempt to generate an overall picture of gender from a psychological perspective.

The Topic of Gender

A critical review of gender research is important for several reasons. First, gender is currently a “hot topic,” and almost everyone has an opinion. These opinions are not usually based on research. Most people are not familiar with research fi ndings; they simply know their own opinions. People’s personal experiences infl uence their opinions, but the media cultivate a view of gender through stories and depictions in the movies, on television entertainment and news programs, and in other media. Based on these portrayals, people create images about how they believe women and men should be and attempt to re-create these images in their own lives. This personal reproduction of gender portrayals in the media is another example of what Candace West and Don Zimmerman (1987) described as “doing gender.”

In Gender: Psychological Perspectives , I present fi ndings from gender researchers, although the picture is neither simple nor complete. Research fi ndings are complex and sometimes contradictory, but the volume of research over the past 50 years has yielded suffi cient research to obtain clarity in some areas, whereas other areas are not yet so clear. I believe that it is important to understand this research rather than draw conclusions based on only personal opinions and popular media portrayals.

Second, despite the bias and controversy that have surrounded the research process, research is a valuable way to understand gender. Although scientifi c research is supposed to be objective and free of personal bias, this idealistic notion often varies from the actual research process. Gender research in particular has been plagued with personal bias. Despite the potential for bias in the research process, I believe that research is the most productive way to approach the evaluation of a topic. Others disagree with this view, including some who are interested in gender-related topics. A number of scholars, especially feminist schol- ars, have rejected scientifi c research as the best way to learn about gender.

Although I agree that science has not treated women equitably, either as researchers or as participants in research, I still believe that science offers the best chance for a fuller understanding of gender (as well as of many other topics). Although some scholars disagree, I believe that science can further the goal of equity. I agree with Janet Shibley Hyde and Kristen Kling (2001, p. 369) who said, “An important task of feminist psychology is to challenge stereotypic ideas about gender and test the stereotypes against data.” My goals

Preface

xvi Preface

are consistent with that view—to examine what gender researchers have found and how they have interpreted their fi ndings. By doing so, I hope to accomplish one of the goals that Meredith Cherland (2008) mentioned for those who teach about gender: “unsettling their students’ collective views of the world and their sense of life’s inevitability” (p. 273). I believe that the research on gender has that potential.

The book’s emphasis on gender is similar to another approach to studying gender— through examining the psychology of women. The psychology-of-women approach concen- trates on women and issues unique to women, whereas the gender approach focuses on the issue of gender as a factor in behavior and in the social context in which behavior occurs. Gender research and theory draw heavily from research on the psychology of women, but the emphasis differs.

By emphasizing women and their experience, the psychology-of-women approach often excludes men, but gender research cannot. Studying both women and men is essential to an understanding of gender. Researchers who are interested in gender issues may concentrate on women or men, but they must consider both, or their research reveals nothing about gender. Therefore, this seventh edition of Gender: Psychological Perspectives examines the research and theory from psychology and related fi elds in order to evaluate the behavior, biology, and social context in which both women and men function.

The gender approach also refl ects my personal preferences: I want a psychology of women and men. When I was completing the fi rst edition of this book, I attended a conference session on creating a course on psychology of women. Several instructors who had created such courses led a discussion about obtaining institutional approval and the challenges they had encountered, including resistance from administrators (who were mostly men) concern- ing a course in which the enrollment would be mostly women. One of the group advised trying for approval of a course on gender if obtaining approval for a psychology of women course was not successful. The implication was that the topic of gender included men and would be more acceptable but less desirable. I disagreed. I wanted men to be included—in the research, in my book, and in my classes. This preference comes from the belief that both women and men are required in order to consider and discuss gender issues. I prefer the gender approach, and I wanted this book to refl ect that attitude. As R. W. (now Raewyn) Connell (2005) has discussed, women’s efforts for change will not succeed completely with- out men’s support and assistance. Men must participate to create gender equity for everyone.

My interest in gender comes from two sources—my research and my experience as a female psychologist. The research that prompted me to examine gender issues more carefully was work on risk perception related to health problems. I was interested in investigating people’s perceptions of the health risks created by their behavior, such as the perceptions of health risks in smokers versus nonsmokers. In this research, I found that women and men saw their behaviors and risks in similar ways, even when the actual level of health risks dif- fered quite a bit for men and women. My research showed gender similarities rather than gender differences.

In examining the volume of research on gender-related attitudes and behaviors, I dis- covered that many other researchers’ fi ndings were similar to mine—more similarities than differences. When differences appeared, many were small. I came to doubt the widespread belief that men and women are opposites. Rather, the evidence indicated that women and men are more similar than different. With the focus on differences, this view was not often voiced. Recently, this view has become more prominent. Concentrating on research fi nd- ings rather than stereotypes or media portrayals, psychologists have come to conclusions of gender similarities rather than differences. Janet Shibley Hyde (2005) has proposed a gender similarities hypothesis rather than one of gender differences, and Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers (2004) have summarized this view as Same Difference.

Preface xvii

As a female psychologist, I was forced to attend to gender issues from the outset of my career. Sexism and discrimination were part of the context in which I received my professional training and in which I have pursued my career as a psychologist. Women were a small minor- ity in the fi eld during my early years in psychology, but the numbers have since increased so that now women receive over half the doctoral degrees granted each year in psychology. This increase and several antidiscrimination laws have produced some improvements in equitable treatment for women in psychology (as well as in other professions and in society in general).

The psychology-of-women approach came from the women in psychology during the feminist movement of the 1960s. Most of the women in psychology have not been directly involved in the psychology of women, and some are not feminists, but the presence of a growing proportion of women has changed psychology, making a psychology of gender not only possible but also, I think, inevitable.

Gendered Voices

Although I believe that research is a good way to understand behavior, including gender- related behavior, I accept the value of other approaches, including personal accounts. In traditional quantitative research, the data consist of numbers, and each participant’s experi- ence is lost in the transformation to numerical data and the statistical compilations of these data. Personal accounts and interviews do not lead to a comfortable blurring of the results. Rather, each person’s account is sharply depicted, with no averaging to blunt the edges of the story. Louise Kidder (1994) contended that one of the drawbacks of personal accounts is the vividness of the data generated by reports of personal experience. I thought that such accounts could be an advantage.

The text of Gender: Psychological Perspectives consists of an evaluation of research fi ndings— exactly the sort of information that people may fi nd diffi cult to relate to their lives. I decided that I also wanted to include some personal, narrative accounts of gender-relevant aspects of people’s lives, and I wanted these accounts to connect to the research studies. The perils of vividness seemed small compared to the advantages. I believe that people’s personal experi- ences are distilled in statistical research, but I also know that a lot of the interesting details are lost in the process.

These “Gendered Voices” narratives are my attempt to restore some of the details lost in statistical summaries, allowing men and women to tell about their personal experiences. Telling these stories separate from the text was an alternative to presenting information about gender and highlighting the relevance of research fi ndings with vivid detail. Some of the stories are funny, showing a light-hearted approach to dealing with the frustrations and annoyances of discrimination and gender bias. Some of the stories are sad, revealing experiences of sexual harassment, violence, and abuse. All of the stories are real accounts, not fi ctional tales constructed as good examples. When the stories are based on published sources, I name the people presenting their experience. For other stories, I have chosen not to name those involved to protect their privacy. I listened to my friends and students talk about gender issues and wrote down what they told me, trying to report what they said in their own words. I hope that these stories give a different perspective and add a sense of gendered experience to the volume of research reported here.

Headlines

Long before I thought of writing a book about gender, I noticed the popularity of the topic in the media. Not only are the sexes the topic of many private and public debates, but gender differences are also the topic of many newspaper, magazine, and television stories, ranging

xviii Preface

from sitcoms to scientifi c reporting. I had read warnings about the media’s tendencies to oversimplify research fi ndings and to “punch up” the fi ndings to make the story grab people’s attention. I wanted to examine the research on gender to try to understand what the research says, with all of its complexities, and to present the media version along with an analysis of the research fi ndings.

Of particular concern to me was the tendency of the media and of people who hear reports of gender research to seek (or assume) a biological basis for the behavioral differences between the sexes, as though evidence of biologically based differences would be more “real” than any other type of evidence. The division of the biological realm from the behavioral realm is a false dichotomy; the two are intertwined and mutually infl uence each other. Even genes can be altered by environment, and experiences can produce changes in behavior as permanent as any produced by physiology. Many people hold the view that biological dif- ferences are real and permanent, whereas experience and culture produce only transient and changeable effects. This view is incorrect.

The tendency to seek a biological explanation is strong and appealing to many. As Naomi Weisstein (1982) said, “Biology has always been used as a curse against women” (p. 41), which has led many scholars to minimize the focus on biology. However, this book exam- ines biological evidence in some detail because I want to present and evaluate this research rather than ignore it. I want readers to question the extent to which the biological “curse” should apply.

To further highlight the popular conceptualizations of gender, I decided to use headlines from newspapers and popular magazines as a way to illustrate how the media represent gender. Some of the headline stories are examples of responsible journalism that seeks to present research in a way that is easy to understand, whereas other headline stories are more sensational or simplifi ed.

The sensationalism occurs because such stories get attention, but the stories distort research fi ndings and perpetuate stereotypical thinking about the sexes. I believe that Beryl Lieff Benderly (1989), a science reporter, was correct when she warned about media sensational- ism of gender research by writing the headline “Don’t believe everything you read” (p. 67).

According to the Media and According to the Research

In addition to gender in the headlines, I have included two boxed features called “Accord- ing to the Media” and “According to the Research” that concentrate on gender portrayals in the media. According to the Media boxes examine how gender is portrayed in the various media—magazines, television, movies, video games, Internet sources, cartoons, and fi ction. The corresponding According to the Research boxes provide research fi ndings as a more systematic counterpoint to the media topics. The contrast of these two presentations pro- vides an opportunity to examine gender bias and stereotyping in the media. I hope these features lead students to question and think critically about the accuracy and fairness of the thousands of gendered images that they experience through the media.

Considering Diversity

The history of psychology is not fi lled with a concern for diversity or an emphasis on diver- sity issues, but these topics are of increasing interest and concern within psychology. Indeed, gender research is one of the major contributors to the growing diversity in psychology. In addition, cross-cultural research has fl ourished and continues to expand in countries around the world. This research has begun to provide a more comprehensive picture of psychological issues in contexts beyond ethnic groups within the United States.

Preface xix

To highlight this developing research and tie it to gender issues, this edition of Gender: Psychological Perspectives includes a section in most chapters called “Considering Diversity,” which focuses on diversity research. Although diversity issues enter the text at many other points in the book, the creation of a section to highlight diversity ensures attention to these important issues. In some chapters, the research is suffi ciently developed to present a cross- cultural review of the topic, but for other topics, cross-cultural research remains sparse, so those diversity sections present a specialized topic that relates to the chapter.

References

Barnett, Rosalind; & Rivers, Caryl. (2004). Same difference: How gender myths are hurting our relationships, our children, and our jobs . New York: Basic Books.

Benderly, Beryl Lieff. (1989, November). Don’t believe everything you read: A case study of sex-difference research turned a small fi nding into a major media fl ap. Psychology Today, 67–69.

Cherland, Meredith. (2008). Harry’s girls: Harry Potter and the discourse of gender. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52 (4), 273–282.

Connell, R. W. (2005). Change among the gatekeepers: Men, masculinities, and gender equality in the global arena. Signs, 30 , 1801–1825.

Hyde, Janet Shibley. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60 , 581–592. Hyde, Janet Shibley; & Kling, Kristen C. (2001). Women, motivation, and achievement. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 25 , 364–378. Kidder, Louise. (1994, August). All pores open . Paper presented at the 102nd annual convention of the American

Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Weisstein, Naomi. (1982, November). Tired of arguing about biological inferiority? Ms., 41–46, 85. West, Candace; & Zimmerman, Don H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1 , 125–151.

At the completion of any book, authors have many people to thank, and I am no exception. Without the assistance, support, and encouragement of many people, I never could have written this book, much less completed six editions. I thank all of them, but several people deserve special mention. My colleagues in the psychology department at McNeese State University were supportive and helpful. Dena Matzenbacher, Denise Arellano, Cameron Melville, Carl Bartling, Charlotte Carp, Tracy Lepper, and Patrick Moreno offered their expertise and assistance.

Husbands often deserve special thanks, and mine is no exception. My husband, Barry Humphus, did a great deal to hold my life together while I was researching and writing: He bailed me out of tech trouble repeatedly and rendered charts and graphs for many of the fi gures that appear in this edition of the book. I would not have attempted (much less completed) this book without him.

I would like to thank the people who told me their personal stories for the Gendered Voices feature of the book, many of whom have been my students at McNeese. To respect their privacy I will not name them, with one exception. Melinda Schaefer deserves special thanks because her story was so good that hearing it made me realize that I wanted to include others’ stories. Without her story, and Louise Kidder’s (1994) presentation, I would not have realized how important these accounts are.

The people at Taylor and Francis have been helpful and supportive. My editor Debra Rieg- ert and her associate Rachel Severinovsky have smoothed the transition to and supported my efforts in revising and completing the manuscript.

I would also like to thank reviewers who read parts of the manuscript and offered helpful suggestions, especially Carol Tavris, who advised me about how to use one of her excel- lent quotations and Florence Denmark, who took the time and careful attention to offer a review. I am honored. I am also grateful to past reviewers Maggie Felton, University of Southern Indiana; Heather Hill, University of Texas at San Antonio; Mary Losch, Univer- sity of Northern Iowa; Elizabeth Ossoff, Saint Anselm College; and Karen Prager, the Uni- versity of Texas at Dallas. Thanks also for the suggestions from Luciane A. Berg, Southern Utah University; Christina Byme, Western Washington University; Linda Heath, Loyola University–Chicago; Marcela Raffaelli, University of Nebraska; and Stephanie Riger, Uni- versity of Illinois–Chicago.

Acknowledgments

Linda Brannon earned two degrees from the University of Texas at Austin: a B.A. degree in Psychology and a Ph.D. in the area of human experimental psychology. After completing her doctorate, she joined the Department of Psychology faculty at McNeese State University in Lake Charles, Louisiana. She stayed at MSU, attaining the rank of Professor of Psychology.

As a female psychologist in the era when they were rare, she developed an interest in gender issues. That interest led fi rst to research, then to this textbook and a Psychology of Gender course, which she has taught for over a decade. She has also coauthored texts in the area of introductory psychology and health psychology and teaches both these courses. Her honors include the 1998 MSU Alumni Association’s Distinguished Professor Award. In addition to teaching and research, she acts as Program Coordinator for McNeese’s Bachelor of Science degree in psychology, mentors students in MSU’s Psi Chi chapter, and maintains her status as licensed psychologist in the state of Louisiana.

About the Author

Headline: “The End of Men,” Atlantic Monthly , July/August, 2010

According to Hanna Rosin (2010), boys and men are losing out to girls and women; the male advantage is declining. For example, in 2010 women became the majority of the workforce in the United States. More boys than girls fail to graduate from high school; women receive the majority of college degrees. These days, about half of doctorates in medicine and law go to women. Many wives earn higher salaries than their husbands do. Rosin pointed out that in modern societies, strength is not the important factor that it was throughout most of history. Instead, intelligence is important, and women and men are equally intelligent. In addition, women have better communication skills and a greater willingness to undergo the schooling that has become so critical for economic success. Rosin proposed that economic and societal forces have changed women’s roles to—and sometimes beyond—the point of equality: “For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point?” (Rosin, 2010, p. 56).

Is it possible that women will become dominant? Anthropologist Melvin Konner (2015) argued that they will; the end of male supremacy is near. Konner’s reasoning is similar to followers of evolutionary psychology who contend that women and men have evolved in different ways that furnish modern humans with “hard-wired” gender differences. Both take an essentialist view , which contends that some “essence,” or underlying biological component, makes men and women different. The evolutionary psychology view (Buss & Schmitt, 2011) holds that evolutionary pressures have shaped women to prioritize their role in raising children, whereas men must gather resources to attract women. These differences in priorities have created modern men who are forceful and dominant and modern women who focus on childbearing and child care.

According to most people’s views of the relationship between biology and behavior, bio- logical differences determine behavior. Therefore, if the differences between women and men are biological, those differences are perceived as fi xed and invariant (Keller, 2005). Recent changes in society should make little difference in women’s and men’s basic natures. Konner argued that the situation of boys and men losing out to girls and women is part of the recent changes in society: The evolved tendencies that have made women more cooperative, caring, practical, and patient have made them better adapted than men in modern society. This twist on an essentialist view of gender differences is not likely to calm the debate about gender.

Confl icts and questions about the roles of women and men occur in debates about gender: Which is more important, nature (biology) or nurture (culture and society)? What types of differences exist? What is the basis for these differences? What is the extent of these differ- ences? A switch from male dominance to equality or female dominance seems inconsistent with an evolutionary view but also with many people’s views: Women and men are born with biological differences that dictate the basis for different traits and behaviors. Indeed, they are

The Study of Gender 1

2 The Study of Gender

so different that women are the “opposite sex,” suggesting that whatever men are, women are at the other end of the spectrum. Those who hold this view fi nd the differences obvi- ous and important. Those who emphasize social and economic factors as the driving forces in behavior see the possibility that roles are fl exible. Drawing from research in psychology, sociology, biology, and anthropology, the differences between women and men seem to be a complex puzzle with many pieces (Eagly & Wood, 2013).

The battle lines have been drawn between two camps, both of which look to volumes of research for support for their view and see supporting evidence for their different views. Some people at some times have believed that differences between males and females are few, whereas others have believed that the two are virtually different species. These two posi- tions can be described as the minimalist view and the maximalist view (Epstein, 1988). The minimalists perceive few important differences between women and men, whereas the maximalists believe that the two have large, fundamental differences. Many maximalists also hold an essentialist view, believing that the large differences between women and men are part of their essential biological natures. Although these views have varied over time, today both the maximalist and the minimalist views have vocal supporters. Table 1.1 summarizes the most prominent version of these two positions and the intersection between these views and the essentialist view.

This lack of agreement coupled with commitment to a position suggests controversy, which is almost too polite a term for these disagreements. Few topics are as fi lled with emotion as discussions of the sexes and their capabilities. These arguments occur in places as diverse as playgrounds and scientifi c laboratories. The questions are similar, regardless of the setting: Who is smarter, faster, healthier, sexier, more capable, and more emotional? Who makes better physicians, engineers, typists, managers, politicians, artists, teachers, parents, and friends? Who is more likely to go crazy, go to jail, commit suicide, have a traffi c accident, tell lies, gossip, and commit murder? The full range of human possibilities seems to be grounds for discussion, but the issues are unquestionably important. No matter what the conclusions, at least of half the human population (and most probably all of it) is affected. Therefore, not only are questions about the sexes interesting, but also the answers are important to individuals and to society. Later chapters explore the research concerning abilities and behaviors, and an examination of this research allows an evaluation of these questions.

Answers to these important questions about differences between women and men are not lacking. Almost everyone has answers—but not the same answers. It is easy to see how people might hold varying opinions about a controversial issue, but some consistency should exist among fi ndings from researchers who have studied men and women. Scientists should be able to investigate the sexes and provide evidence concerning these important questions. Researchers have pursued these questions, obtained results, and published thousands of

Table 1.1 The Maximalist and Minimalist Views of Gender Differences

Position View of Differences between the Sexes

Differences Created through How Strongly Essentialist?

Maximalist Differences are large and important

Evolutionary history and sex hormones

Very

Minimalist Differences are small with few large enough to be important

Stereotyping and different treatment for males and females

Not Strongly

The Study of Gender 3

papers. There is no shortage of investigations—or publicity—about the sexes. Unfortunately, researchers are subject to the same problems as everyone else: They do not all agree on what the results mean—or even what they are.

In addition, many research fi ndings on men and women are not consistent with popular opinion, suggesting that popular opinion may be an exaggeration or distortion, most likely based on people’s personal experiences rather than on research. Both the past and the present are fi lled with examples that exaggerate differences between women and men.

People have a tendency to think in terms of opposites when considering only two exam- ples, as with the sexes (Fausto-Sterling, 2000; Tavris, 1992). If three sexes existed, people might not have the tendency to draw comparisons of such extremes. They might be able to see the similarities as well as the differences in men and women; they might be able to approach the questions with more fl exibility in their thinking. The sexual world may not actually be polarized into only two categories (as Chapter 4 explores this in more detail), but people do tend to see it that way. This perception of only two sexes infl uences people to think of the two sexes as polar opposites. To maintain these oppositional categories, people must exaggerate the differences between women and men, which results in stereotypes that do not correspond to real people (Bem, 1993b). Although these stereotypes are not realistic, they are powerful because they affect how women and men think about themselves and how they think about the “opposite” sex.

History of the Study of Sex Differences in Psychology

Speculations about the differences between men and women probably predate history, but these issues were not part of the investigations of early psychology. Indeed, questions about sex differences were not part of early psychology. Questions in early psychology were guided by its founder, Wilhelm Wundt, and revolved around the nature of human thought processes (Schultz & Schultz, 2012). Wundt wanted to establish a natural sci- ence of the mind through experimentation; he established a laboratory at the University of Leipzig in Germany in 1879 (although this date is subject to some controversy). Students fl ocked to Wundt’s lab to study the new psychology. Using chemistry as the model, they devised a psychology based on an analytical understanding of the structure of the conscious mind. This approach to psychology became known as the structuralist school of psychology.

The structuralists were interested in investigating the “generalized adult mind” (Shields, 1975a), and therefore any individual differences, including differences between the minds of women and men, were of no concern to these early psychologists. This inattention to sex differences did not mean equal treatment of women and men by these early psycholo- gists. The generalized adult mind on which psychology’s early fi ndings were based was a generalization drawn from data collected from and by men. Indeed, women were expressly prohibited from one of the early groups of experimental psychologists in the United States (Schultz & Schultz, 2012).

Some scholars from the United States went to Germany to study with Wundt and brought psychology back. Despite their training in Germany, many found the views of German psy- chology too limiting and impractical. As psychology grew in the United States, it developed a more practical nature. This change is usually described as an evolution to functional- ism , a school of psychology that emphasized how the mind functions rather than its struc- ture (Schultz & Schultz, 2012). As psychologists with a functionalist orientation started to research and theorize, they drew a wider variety of subjects into psychological research and theories, including children, women, and nonhuman animals.

4 The Study of Gender

The Study of Individual Differences

Among the areas of interest in functionalist psychology were the issues of adaptability and intelligence. These interests prompted the development of intelligence testing and the com- parison of individual differences in mental abilities and personality traits, including sex dif- ferences. The functionalists, infl uenced by Darwin and the theory of evolution, tended to look for biologically determined differences, including a biological basis for sex differences. Although female psychologists pointed out the effects of social infl uence on women’s and men’s behaviors, functionalist psychologists were hesitant to acknowledge any possibility of social infl uence in the sex differences they found (Milar, 2000).

The studies and writings of functionalists of this era tended to demonstrate that women were less intelligent than men, benefi ted less from education, had strong maternal instincts, and were unlikely to produce examples of success or eminence. Women were not the only group deemed inferior; people who were not white were also considered less intelligent and less capable.

Findings of the intellectual defi ciencies of women did not go uncriticized. As early as 1910, Helen Thompson Woolley contended that the research on sex differences was full of the researchers’ personal bias, prejudice, and sentiment (Shields, 1975a), and Leta Stet- ter Hollingworth took a stand against the functionalist view of women (Shields, 1975b). These female psychologists argued against the prevailing view. Hollingworth contended that women’s potential would never be known until women had the opportunity to choose the lives they would like—career, maternity, or both.

The functionalist view began to wane in the 1920s, and a new school of psychology, behaviorism , gained prominence. The behaviorists emphasized observable behavior rather than thought processes or instincts as the subject matter of psychology. The behaviorist view of psychology was consistent with the prevailing style of masculinity during the early 20th century—tough-minded and combative (Minton, 2000). With the change from a functionalist to a behaviorist paradigm in U.S. psychology, the interest in research on sex differences sharply decreased. “The functionalists, because of their emphasis on ‘nature,’ were predictably indifferent to the study of social sex roles and cultural concepts of masculine and feminine. The behaviorists, despite their emphasis on ‘nurture,’ were slow to recognize those same social forces” (Shields, 1975a, p. 751). Rather, behaviorists were interested in the areas of learning and memory, concentrating on studies with rats as subjects.

In addition, research on learning ignored social factors, including sex roles and sex dif- ferences. In ignoring gender, psychologists created “womanless” psychology (Crawford & Marecek, 1989), an approach that either failed to include women as participants or failed to examine gender-related factors when both men and women participated in psychological research. Until the 1970s, psychology was overwhelmingly male. As Rhoda Unger (1983– 1984) commented about her education in psychology, “Even the rats were male” (p. 227).

When behaviorism dominated psychology, the only theorists who unquestionably had an interest in sex differences were those with a psychodynamic orientation—the Freudians.

Psychoanalysis

Both Freud’s psychodynamic theory of personality development and his psychoanalytic approach to treatment appear in more detail in Chapter 5 . However, the history of psy- chology’s involvement in issues of sex and gender necessitates a brief description of Freud’s personality theory and his approach to treatment.

Although Sigmund Freud’s work did not originate within psychology, the two are popu- larly associated. And unquestionably, Freud’s work and Freudian theory concerning person- ality differences between women and men have infl uenced both psychology and society in general. These infl uences have made the work of Freud very important for understanding how theorists within psychology conceptualized sex and gender.

The Study of Gender 5

In the United States, Freud’s work began to gain popular attention in 1909, when Freud came to the United States to give a series of invited lectures at Clark University (Schultz & Schultz, 2012). Immediately after his visit, newspapers started carrying features about Freud and his theory. By 1920, interest in Freudian theory and analysis was evident both in books and in articles in popular magazines. Psychoanalysis gained popular interest, becoming almost a fad. Indeed, popular acceptance of Freud’s work preceded its acceptance by academicians.

Freud emphasized the role of instinct and physiology in personality formation, hypoth- esizing that instincts provide the basic energy for personality and that the child’s perception of anatomical differences between boys and girls is a pivotal event in personality formation. Rather than rely on genetic or hormonal explanations for sex differences in personality, Freud looked to early childhood experiences within the family to explain how physiology interacts with experience to infl uence personality development.

For Freud (1925/1989), the perception of anatomical differences between boys and girls was a critical event. The knowledge that boys and men have penises and girls and women do not forms the basis for personality differences between boys and girls. The results of this perception lead to confl ict in the family, including sexual attraction to the other-sex parent and hostility for the same-sex parent. These incestuous desires cannot persist, and Freud hypothesized that the resolution of these confl icts comes through identifi cation with the same-sex parent. However, Freud believed that boys experience more confl ict and trauma during this early development than girls, leading boys to a more complete rejection of their mother and a more complete identifi cation with their father. Consequently, Freud (1925/1989) hypothesized that men typically form a stronger conscience and sense of social values than women do.

Did Freud mean that girls and women were defi cient in moral standards compared to men? Did he view women as incomplete (and less admirable) people? It is probably impossible to know what Freud thought and felt, and his writings are suffi ciently varied to lead to contra- dictory interpretations. Thus the question of Freud’s view of women has been hotly debated. Some authors have criticized Freud for supporting a male-oriented society and the enslave- ment of women, whereas others have defended Freud and his work as applied to women. In defense of Freud (Tavris & Wade, 1984), his view of women was not suffi ciently negative to prevent him from accepting them as colleagues during a time when women were not wel- come in many professions. In addition, he encouraged his daughter, Anna, to pursue a career in psychoanalysis. Freud’s writings, however, reveal that he held many negative views about women and seemed to feel that they were inferior to men, both intellectually and morally.

Regardless of Freud’s personal beliefs, the popular interpretation of his theory repre- sented women as inferior to men—less ethical, more concerned with personal appearance, more self-contemptuous, and jealous of men’s accomplishments (and also, literally, of their penises). Accepting the feminine role would always mean settling for inferior status and opportunities, and women who were not able to reconcile themselves to this status were candidates for therapy because they had not accepted their femininity.

Freud’s theory also held stringent and infl exible standards for the development of mascu- linity. For boys to develop normally, they must experience severe anxiety during early child- hood and develop hatred for their father. This trauma should lead a boy to identify with his father out of fear and to experience the advantages of the male role through becoming like him. Boys who do not make a suffi ciently complete break with their mothers are not likely to become fully masculine but to remain somewhat feminine, thus experiencing the problems that society accords to nonmasculine men.

The psychoanalytic view of femininity and masculinity has been enormously infl uential in Western society. Although not immediately accepted in academic departments, the psycho- analytic view of personality and psychopathology was gradually integrated into the research and training of psychologists. Although the theory has prompted continuing controversy,

6 The Study of Gender

interest continues in the form of both attacks and defenses. This continuing stream of books and articles speaks to the power of Freud’s theory to capture attention and imagination. Despite limited research support, Freudian theory has been and remains a force in concep- tions of sex and gender.

In summary, psychological research that includes women dates back to the early 20th century and the functionalist school of psychology, but this approach emphasized sex differences and searched for the factors that distinguish men and women. When the behaviorist school domi- nated academic psychology, its lack of interest in sex differences created a virtually “woman- less” psychology. During that same time, Freudian psychoanalysts held strong views on the sexes, but this theory proposed that women are physically and morally inferior to men. This belief in the innate inferiority of women infl uenced research on women. Table 1.2 summarizes psychological theories and their approaches to gender. In contrast to these male-dominated theories, some investigators emphasize the study of women.

The Development of Women’s Studies Women’s studies came about as a result of political, social, and intellectual developments that began in the 18th century and continue in the present (Sommers, 2008). Those develop- ments have affected psychology and have changed society and people’s daily lives.

The History of Feminist Movements

The feminist movement of the 1960s prompted the development of women’s studies (Freed- man, 2002). This version of feminism is referred to as the second wave of feminism. The fi rst wave of feminism began with the campaign for changes in women’s roles and legal status, focusing on voting rights for women, the availability of birth control, and other legal changes to improve women’s social and economic status (Sommers, 2008). That movement experi- enced some success—for example, women gained the right to vote in many countries—but other legal changes did not occur.

The feminist movement of the 1960s grew out of the U.S. civil rights movement and brought about some of the changes that earlier feminist movements had sought (Nachescu, 2009). One of the most prominent changes was women’s entry into the workforce in record numbers in many industrialized countries. Both professional and working-class women experienced situa- tions of discrimination that led many to work toward legal and social changes for women. These goals fi t the defi nition of liberal (or equal rights) feminism and included people who wanted to end discrimination based on sex and extend equal rights to women (Freedman, 2002).

Table 1.2 Role of Gender in Psychological Theories throughout the History of Psychology

Theory Emphasis of Theory Role of Gender

Structuralism Understanding the structure of the human mind

Minimal—all minds are equivalent

Functionalism Understanding the function of the mind

Sex differences are one type of individual difference

Behaviorism Studying behavior in a scientifi c way

Minimal—behavior varies with individual experience

Psychoanalysis Studying normal and abnormal personality development and functioning

Biological sex differences and their recognition are motivating forces

The Study of Gender 7

Some feminists believed that calling for an end to discrimination was not suffi cient; equal- ity for women required more drastic changes in society. These radical feminists believed that women have been oppressed by men and that this oppression has served as a model for racial and class oppression (Nachescu, 2009). According to radical feminists, the entire social system requires major change to end the subservient role that women occupy. Both liberal and radi- cal feminism call for political activism designed to bring about changes in laws and in society.

In the 1960s and 1970s, women entered colleges and universities in increasing numbers. These scholars pursued their interest by focusing on topics related to women, which resulted in the development of courses and curricula devoted to women’s studies as an academic discipline. This emphasis was often compatible with another variety of feminism, cultural feminism , which also advocates social change. Inspired by Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice (1982), cultural feminists advocate moving toward an acceptance and appreciation of traditionally feminine values. Cultural feminists believe that, were women in charge, many of the world’s problems would disappear, because women’s values of caring and relationships would eliminate them.

Radical and cultural feminists have received more publicity than other types of feminism, creating an inaccurate image of and a backlash against feminism (see According to the Media and According to the Research). Feminists were cast as loud, pushy, man-hating, unattractive women who always seemed unsatisfi ed, even with the changes that had offered them the opportunities they sought. This image led to many women’s reluctance to identify with feminism, and media sources proclaimed that feminism was dying (Hall & Rodri- guez, 2003). Feminist values did not disappear; indeed, women and men continued to

Photo 1.1 The fi rst women’s movement pushed for voting rights for women.

8 The Study of Gender

endorse equal right and opportunities, but fewer identifi ed as feminists. This development began the third wave of feminism, often called postfeminism. Underlying this concept is the notion that feminism is not necessary because the goals of second wave feminism have been accomplished. Many dispute this notion, but it remains a common belief. Table 1.3 summarizes the three waves of feminism.

Table 1.3 Waves of Feminism

Wave of Feminism Time Frame Dominant Theme Goals

First Wave Mid-1800s–Early 1900s

Suffrage Movement Women deserve legal rights Voting rights and access to birth control for women

Second Wave 1960s–1980s

Liberal/Equal Rights Women deserve equal legal rights

Equal access to education, workplace, and political careers

Radical Male dominance has oppressed women

Overthrow male oppression

Cultural Women’s values are different and deserve respect

Acceptance and appreciation of women and female values

Third Wave 1990s–present

Postfeminism Feminism is no longer necessary

Women have achieved equal treatment and opportunities

According to the Media . . . Feminists Are Bra-Burning Man-Haters The media image of a feminist is a radical, man-hating woman who is uninterested in attracting (or unable to attract) men. This description is remarkably consistent throughout the United States, reported Courtney Martin (2007), who attributed this consistency to “media manufactured myths.”

The image of feminists as “bra burners” originated with one of the prominent events in the second wave of feminism: the protest at the 1968 Miss America pageant (Kreydatus, 2008). A group of feminist women organized a protest of the beauty pageant, arguing that its emphasis on a specifi c standard of beauty was degrading to women. Heavy media coverage accompanied these protests, and one reporter used the term “bra burner” to describe these feminists. The description stuck.

The media have focused on radical feminists, probably because these femi- nists provide better stories. As feminism grew, the medial labels became even more uncomplimentary, including the term “feminazi,” popularized by Rush Limbaugh (MediaMatters for America, 2005). The focus on radicalism and the uncompliment- ary media terms helped to promote feminists as radical, bra-burning man-haters.

Television and movies have portrayed that image and other variations of feminism in ways that belittle, satirize, or dilute feminism. The PowerPuff Girls (1998–2005) portrayed kindergarten female superheroes, but the show’s worst villain, Femme Fatale, called herself a feminist. Recent televisions shows, such as 30 Rock , Scandal , and Homeland , feature leading female characters that display a mixture of intelligence and competence but also stereotypically poor judgment problems concerning men. These female characters do not match the radical feminist stereotypes, but they dilute their strong female characters to make their strength more acceptable.

The Study of Gender 9

According to the Research . . . Feminists Are Neither of the Above

According to research conducted with feminist women, they fail to match any of the stereotypes promoted in the media. An examination of the events of the protest during the 1968 Miss American pageant failed to show any burned bras (Kreydatus, 2008). A “freedom trash can” was part of the protest, and the protesters threw in objects they associated with “female garbage,” such as bras, girdles, false eyelashes, and steno pads, but they did not set the objects on fi re. The bra burning was symbolic, not literal, but the image persisted.

The notion that feminists hate men is also a widespread belief, but little research has investigated and none has supported this stereotype. One study assessed wom- en’s feminism and then tested their attitudes toward men (Anderson, Kanner, & Elsayegh, 2009). The results indicated the opposite of the stereotype: Feminists had lower levels of hostility toward men than women who did not identify themselves as feminists.

Some feminist scholars (Barakso & Schaffner, 2006) have contended that the media focus on the more extreme issues and members of feminist groups, which has created the image of Limbaugh’s “feminazis” but fails to capture the women or the issues of feminism. As feminist Courtney Martin (2007) said, “Feminism in its most glorious, transformative, inclusive sense, is not about man-hating” but about educated choices for men as well as for women, genuine equality, and a vision of gender roles that allow individuals to become their most authentic selves. This image lacks the controversy and varies from the media stereotype of feminists.

Sex or Gender?

With the growing interest in women’s issues came concerns about how to phrase the questions researchers asked. Those researchers who have concentrated on the differences between men and women historically have used the term sex differences to describe their work. In some investigations, these differences were the main emphasis of the study, but for many more studies, such comparisons were of secondary importance (Unger, 1979). By measuring and analyzing differences between male and female par- ticipants, researchers have produced a huge body of information on these differences and similarities, but this information was not of primary importance to most of these researchers.

When differences between women and men began to be the focus of research, contro- versy arose over terminology. Some researchers objected to the term sex differences , con- tending that any differences trace back to biology (McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986). Critics also objected that the term has been used too extensively and with too many mean- ings, including chromosomal confi guration, reproductive physiology, secondary sex char- acteristics, as well as behaviors or characteristics associated with women or men (Unger, 1979). Rhoda Unger proposed an alternative—the term gender . She explained that this term describes the traits and behaviors that are regarded by the culture as appropriate to women and men. Gender is thus a social label and not a description of biology. This label includes the characteristics that the culture ascribes to each sex and the sex-related char- acteristics that individuals assign to themselves. Carolyn Sherif (1982) proposed a similar defi nition of gender as “a scheme for social categorization of individuals” (p. 376). Both Unger and Sherif recognized the socially created differentiations that have arisen from the

10 The Study of Gender

biological differences associated with sex, and both have proposed that use of the term gender should provide a useful distinction.

Unger suggested that use of the term gender might reduce the assumed parallels between biological and psychological sex, or at least make those assumptions explicit. That attempt to draw distinctions between the concepts of sex and gender has not been entirely success- ful. Some researchers use the two terms interchangeably, whereas others have substituted the term gender for the term sex but still fail to make any distinction (Pryzgoda & Chrisler, 2000). Others choose the terminology that refl ects their point of view—those who use the term gender often intend to emphasize the social nature of differences between women and men, whereas those who use the term sex mean to imply biological differences. Thus researchers who are biological essentialists use the term sex to refer to all differences between men and women, whereas those who use the term gender want to emphasize the social nature of such differences.

Women in Psychology

The history of studying gender in psychology is lengthy, including the individual differ- ences approach and psychoanalysis. However, women were rarely prominent psychologists. Women were admitted as students in doctoral programs from the early years of psychology, but they had a diffi cult time fi nding positions as psychologists, especially in academic set- tings. In 1941, a group of female psychologists formed the National Council of Women Psychologists to further the work of female psychologists in the war effort (Walsh, 1985). In 1944, this group became the International Council of Women Psychologists, and despite attempts to become a division of the American Psychological Association (APA), they expe- rienced repeated rejections.

The dramatic increase of women attending college in the 1960s affected psychology, and the new area of women’s studies changed the discipline. Infl uenced by feminist scholars and their own research priorities, women expanded the earlier area of gender-related behaviors and individual differences to create a new psychology of women and gender (Marecek, Kimmel, Crawford, & Hare-Mustin, 2003; Walsh, 1985).

In 1968, psychologist Naomi Weisstein presented a paper that infl uenced a generation of psychologists, “‘Kinde, Küche, Kirche’ as Scientifi c Law: Psychology Constructs the Female.” In this paper, Weisstein (1970) argued that psychological research had revealed almost nothing about women because the biases, wishes, and fantasies of the male psy- chologists who conducted the research contaminated the results. Although the criticism was aimed mostly at clinical psychology and the Freudian approach to therapy, Weisstein also charged research psychologists with fi nding only what they wanted and expected to fi nd about women rather than researching women as they were. She wrote: “Present psy- chology is less than worthless in contributing to a vision which could truly liberate—men as well as women” (p. 231).

Weisstein’s accusations came at a time when the feminist movement in society and a growing number of women in psychology wanted a more prominent place for women in the fi eld and sought to create feminist-oriented research. Weisstein made the point that psycho- logical research had neglected to take into account the context of behavior, without which psychologists could understand neither women nor people in general. This criticism seems to have contained a great deal of foresight (Bem, 1993a); psychological research on women began to change in that specifi c way. “During the 1970s psychological researchers made an important discovery: humans are gendered beings whose lives and experiences are (most

The Study of Gender 11

likely) infl uenced by their gender” (Smiler, 2004, p. 15). Psychologists held no monopoly on women’s studies. Sociologists, anthropologists, ethnologists, and biologists also became involved in questions about biological and behavioral differences and similarities between the sexes (Schiebinger, 1999).

The struggle for professional acceptance is clear in the history of the formation in the APA of a division devoted to women’s issues, which did not occur until 1973. Division 35, Society for the Psychology of Women, can be directly traced to the Association for Women in Psychology, a group that demonstrated against sex discrimination and advocated for an increase in feminist psychological research at the 1969 and 1970 APA national conventions (Walsh, 1985). Unlike the earlier International Council, Division 35 goals included not only the promotion of women in psychology, but also the advancement of research on women and issues related to gender. The great volume of psychological research on sex and gender that has appeared in the past 35 years is consistent with the Division 35 goal of expanding the study of women and encouraging the integration of that research with current psycho- logical thinking. Indeed, Division 35 members have conducted much of that research, but other disciplines have also contributed substantially. The current plethora of research on sex and gender comes from investigations in biology, medicine, sociology, communication, and anthropology, as well as psychology.

In summary, the feminist movement of the 1960s prompted a different type of research, producing results that questioned the stereotypes and assumptions about innate differences between the sexes. Not only did this research begin to examine sex differences and similari- ties, but these researchers also expanded ways to study women and men. This more recent orientation has led to voluminous research in the fi eld of psychology, as well as in sociology, anthropology, communication studies, literary analysis, art, and biology.

The feminist movement questioned the roles and stereotypes for women, and soon the questioning spread to men, who began to examine how the infl exibility of gender stereotypes might harm them, too.

Gendered Voices: I’m Not a Feminist, But. . . .

Women (and a few men) utter the phrase, “I’m not a feminist, but. . . .” usually followed by a statement that is clearly feminist. This unwillingness to identify with the women’s movement highlights the emergence of a new F-word shocking polite company: feminism (Penny, 2013). Even women and men who espouse feminist values seem to feel obligated to distance themselves from the label.

One example of that reluctance came from Katie Perry, who said “I’m not a femi- nist, but I do believe in the strength of women” when she received the 2012 Billboard Woman of the Year award (Jezebel, 2012). Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer said that she would not consider herself a feminist because that term seems very negative (Mandell, 2013), but she also said “I certainly believe in equal rights. I believe that women are just as capable, if not more so, in a lot of different dimensions.” Beyoncé Knowles is another accomplished woman who was not anxious to be identified as a feminist; the word feminism seems extreme to her, too (Ellison, 2013). But she finally conceded: “But I guess I am a modern-day feminist. I do believe in equality.” This is one of the basic definitions of feminism.

12 The Study of Gender

The Appearance of the Men’s Movement

The men’s movement mirrors the women’s movement, beginning during the 19th-century women’s suffrage movement. During that time, the women’s suffrage movement was not the only challenge to society’s roles for men and women. Men felt increasing threats to their mascu- linity by the change from agricultural to industrial society, by women entering the workforce, and by increasing demands for education, which seemed dominated by women (Minton, 2000).

The contemporary women’s movement has also questioned and challenged men concern- ing the status quo of legal, social, and personal roles and relationships. Although some men have failed to see the problem, other men from around the world have begun to consider how these challenges pertain to their lives, too. R. W. Connell (2001) argued that societal roles constrain men, too, giving men a reason to seek change: “The gender positions that society constructs for men may not correspond exactly with what men actually are, or desire to be, or what they actually do. It is therefore necessary to study masculinity as well as men” (p. 44). Connell (2005, 2012) continued to study masculinity and began to emphasize the necessity of men’s participation in reforming gender roles, contending that: “Moving toward a gender-equal society involves profound institutional change as well as change in everyday life and personal conduct. To move far in this direction requires widespread social support, including signifi cant support from men and boys” (2005, p. 1801).

Feminist men formed groups equivalent to the consciousness-raising groups common in the women’s movement (Baumli & Williamson, 1997). Although group members discussed their common problems and sought support from each other, their activities usually did not progress to the larger organizations that sought political power, as the women’s groups had done. They tended to remain small and local, but a few grew into national organizations.

During the 1970s, men who were interested in furthering feminist goals joined the National Organization for Women and proclaimed themselves to be feminists. During the 1980s, mas- culinity and the problems of men became a focus, and other profeminist men’s organizations arose. The National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) is a profeminist men’s organization that also works to obliterate racism and prejudice against gay men. This type of concern with masculinity and exploring positive options has spread to countries around the world, including Australia, Sweden, Japan, Latin America, and the Caribbean (Connell, 2012).

Within psychology, the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity suc- ceeded in gaining divisional status in 1995, becoming Division 51 of the APA. The goals of this division include (1) promoting the study of how gender roles shape and constrict men’s lives, (2) helping men to experience their full human potential, and (3) eroding the defi nition of masculinity that has inhibited men’s development and has contributed to the oppression of others.

Another approach to men’s groups appears in national groups that are not interested in feminist goals; indeed, some of these men are interested in restoring the traditional gender roles that they believe have been destroyed by the women’s movement. These men argue that men—not women—are the oppressed sex. One such group is the National Coalition for Men (NCFM, formerly the National Coalition of Free Men), a group that opposes sexism but sees feminist groups as sexist. The men in NCFM (Baumli & Williamson, 1997) have argued that sexism oppresses men more than women.

Some men’s rights groups are organized around specifi c issues, such as changing divorce laws or promoting joint child custody (Baumli & Williamson, 1997). Many of these men see women’s rights groups as enemies because women’s groups tend to oppose joint custody and no-fault divorce laws. Few in the men’s movement actively promote a return of “the good old days” and a reversal of the changes brought about by the women’s movement. Many participants in men’s groups would like to see a less sharply gendered society, in which both women and men have choices not bound by gender stereotypes. The changes that would

The Study of Gender 13

fulfi ll these goals differ among men, and both antifeminist and profeminist men consider themselves part of the men’s movement (Strapagiel, 2013).

Yet another variation of the men’s movement came from men trying to fi nd a masculine identity that differs from traditional masculinity. Early proponents of this view included authors such as Robert Bly (1990) and Sam Keen (1991), who contend that modern society has left men with no easy way to form a masculine identity. The culture provides inappropri- ate models, and fathers are often absent, providing no model at all. This defi cit produces men who are inappropriately aggressive and poorly fi tted to live in society, to form relationships with women, and to be adequate fathers. The straight edge (sXe) is a more recent movement with similar views. Most of those in this movement are young, single, White men who fol- low punk rock music but reject the drug use, violence, and sexual exploitation common in that (and in mainstream) culture (Haenfl er, 2004). These men are committed to creating an alternative masculinity that is more compassionate and accepting: This version of the men’s movement has spread worldwide.

Two versions of the men’s movement gained and then lost popularity: Promise Keep- ers and the Good Men Movement. The Promise Keepers arose during the 1990s as part of neoconservative evangelical Christianity. Their vision of masculinity was one of godly manhood in which men should reclaim their position as head of the family, living up to their roles as providers and protectors (Bartkowski, 2000; Messner, 1997; Newton, 2004). Promise Keepers was also the model for the development of a Catholic men’s movement (Gelfer, 2008). Studies of men who have participated in Promise Keepers (Newton, 2004; Silverstein, Auerbach, Grieco, & Dunk, 1999) revealed that this movement supports men who attempt to become more nurturant, involved fathers. Promise Keepers sponsored rallies that fi lled football stadiums in the 1990s, but fi nancial and leadership problems caused a loss in popularity (Fowler, 2009).

Gendered Voices: When I Look in the Mirror

“When you wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, what do you see?” a Black woman asked a White woman (Kimmel & Messner, 1992, p. 2).

“I see a woman,” said the White woman. “That’s precisely the issue,” the Black woman replied. “I see a Black woman. For me, race

is visible every day, because it is how I am not privileged in this culture. Race is invisible to you, which is why our alliance will always seem somewhat false to me” (p. 2).

This exchange surprised Michael Kimmel, who examined his own thoughts and realized that when he looked into the mirror, he “saw a human being: universally generalizable. The generic person” (p. 2). Just as the White woman did not see her ethnicity, the White man saw neither his gender nor his ethnic background. His privileged status as White and male had made him blind to these factors. He did not think of himself as White or male but as a generic human. The White woman saw femaleness—the characteristic that prompted discrimination against her. The Black woman saw both her skin color and her gender when she looked into the mirror—both had been salient in her life.

As Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner (1992, pp. 2–3) summarized these experiences: “The mechanisms that afford us privilege are very often invisible to us. . . . [M]en often think of themselves as genderless, as if gender did not matter in the daily experiences of our lives. Certainly, we can see the biological sex of individuals, but we rarely understand the ways in which gender—that complex of social meanings that is attached to biological sex—is enacted in our daily lives.”

14 The Study of Gender

Tom Matlack originated The Good Men Project in 2009 with the publication of a book of essays and a documentary fi lm, both of which explored possibilities for modern masculinity (Good Men Project, 2013). The organization founded an online magazine in 2010, allow- ing men to publish their stories. The Project gained popularity, garnered praise, and then encountered controversy over the increasingly antifeminist tone of some stories, including those from Matlack (Schwyzer, 2011), which ultimately resulted in Matlack’s resignation.

The men’s movement exists in many versions with diverse views and goals, and the men in these various groups do not necessarily know much about the others or endorse their views (Ford, 2004; Newton, 2004). Thus, the men’s movement lacks cohesion. “Mascu- linities, it appears, are far from settled. From bodybuilders in the gym, to managers in the boardroom, to boys in the elementary school playground, a great deal of effort goes into the making of conventional masculinities” (Connell, 2001, p. 50). Although some men are questioning this process, none of the versions of the men’s movement has yet exerted the impact of the women’s movement in infl uencing public opinion and changing social policy. Table 1.4 lists some important events in both women’s and men’s movements and when each event occurred.

Table 1.4 Important Events in the Women’s and Men’s Movements

Women’s Movement Men’s Movement

First women’s rights convention, Seneca Falls, New York

1848

1870 15th Amendment to U.S. Constitution gives African American men the right to vote

19th Amendment to U.S. Constitution gives women the right to vote

1920

National Council of Women Psychologists 1941

Simon de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex published 1952

Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique published 1963

The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex

1964 1964 The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex

National Organization for Women formed 1966

Association for Women in Psychology demonstrates against sexism at APA convention

1969

APA Division 35 formed 1973

First World Conference on Women, Mexico City 1975

United Nations Decade for Women 1976– 1985

1983 National Organization for Changing Men Founded

1990 Robert Bly’s Iron John published

Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, including Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action

1995 1995 APA Division 51 formed

1995 Million Man March, Washington, DC

1997 Promise Keepers rally, Washington, DC

United Nations 10-year review, Beijing Platform for Action

2005

The Study of Gender 15

Considering Diversity Lack of diversity was the problem that sparked women to protest their exclusion in psychol- ogy (and in society). That lack of diversity allowed men to be used as the standard (Bem, 1993b; Yoder & Kahn, 1993), which makes women appear defi cient when they differ from that standard. Sandra Bem (1993b) referred to this as an androcentric bias , contending that this bias has permeated not only psychology and its research but also society in general. Whenever research fi nds a gender difference, that fi nding is interpreted as a disadvantage for women.

A similar concern applies to research focusing on women from various ethnic groups (Yoder & Kahn, 1993). White, privileged women have constituted the standard for research with women, and when women from other ethnic groups are included, they are compared to White, usually middle-class, college-educated women. In such a comparison, the dominant group tends to consider its own experience as the standard, and differences can be interpreted as defi ciencies (Unger, 1995). That type of thoughtless bias occurred during the second wave of feminism in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s and produced a rift that has not yet closed.

In the United States, women of color have a long history of oppression and discrimina- tion, but they did not participate in the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s in the same ways that White women did. Instead, they focused on the ways that they experienced oppression and found routes to organize into groups and promote change.

Many African American women have focused their efforts on racial rather than sexual discrimination (Cole & Guy-Sheftall, 2003). When African American women addressed issues of sexism within their communities, these women were often considered disloyal to the struggle against racism for bringing up gender issues. These criticisms did not stop African American women from opposing sexism and founding several feminist organizations during the 1960s and 1970s, including the Black Women’s Liberation Caucus, the Third World Women’s Alliance, and the National Black Feminist Organization (Cole & Guy-Sheftall, 2003).

African American women were not the only ones who faced intersecting sources of dis- crimination. Latina, Asian, and Native American women also formed groups that opposed racism and sexism, creating what Becky Thompson (2002) called multiracial feminism ; she described these interactions:

As the straight Black women interacted with the Black lesbians, the fi rst-generation Chinese women talked with the Native American activists, and the Latina women talked with the Black and white women about the walls that go up when people cannot speak Spanish, white women attempting to understand race knew they had a lot of listening to do. They also had a lot of truth telling to reckon with, and a lot of networking to do, among other white women and with women of color as well.

(p. 343)

The interactions were not always as productive as Thompson described. Women of color often failed to fi nd feminist group compatible with their priorities, which focused on racism and sexism, but in that order. Whitney Peoples (2008, p. 35) explained this point of view: “Feminists of color in the contemporary moment fi nd mainstream social, political and eco- nomic landscape has not rid itself of racism, neither has feminism.” The women who found feminism unwelcoming did not abandon the values of feminism; rather, they adapted them to meet their goals. Peoples described a version of feminism she calls hip-hop feminism , which draws from the energy of hip-hop culture to lead young women to a critical analysis of the

16 The Study of Gender

sexism and racism that continues in U.S. society. Peoples argued that, through this analysis, women can be empowered.

Latina women in the United States were an important part of the civil rights movement for Hispanics, which began during the 1960s. Organized as part of that movement, the fi rst National Chicana Conference took place in 1971, but almost half of the 600 who attended walked out because they objected to the focus of the conference, which was on gender issues rather than racism (Flores, 2008). This situation is similar to that of African Ameri- can women, who also experienced confl icts over which source of discrimination was more important. This confl ict kept many Latinas from allying themselves with feminist groups and labeling themselves as feminists.

The confl ict that Latina women faced is rooted in their culture and religion. Motherhood, sacrifi ce to family, and subservience to men are idealized values in Hispanic culture; women become targets of criticism if they espouse feminist values that would allow them to estab- lish equal power with husbands, live independent of men, and limit the number of children they bear (Rodríguez, 2008). The critics held that women who wanted such changes had abandoned their culture; they were no longer really Latinas. Thus, Latina women have faced challenges in identifying as feminist but have often redefi ned their roles and behavior in ways that are compatible with the defi nition of feminism. In the United States and throughout Latin America, women’s groups are often oriented to access to family planning services, pre- venting domestic violence, increasing educational opportunities, and creating opportunities for women to gain economic power (Espino, 2007).

Native American women have also felt misgivings about the feminist movement for some of the same reasons as Latina women (Smith, 2005). Their objections to racism and their history of treatment by Whites were important to them, but so too were their experiences of sexism and violence from men. They faced criticism from men for speaking out about sexism. Thus, some Native American women avoided the term feminist , whereas others expe- rienced no problems in accepting the term. Regardless of their terminology, many Native American women have organized into groups that have feminist goals, which often revolve around prevention of domestic violence and child welfare, making them similar to the goals of many women’s groups.

Asian American women have also experienced diffi culties in identifying themselves as feminists. Some of their reasons are similar to those of Latina and Native American women, such as the criticism of becoming too “American” and rejecting their heritage (Perez, 2003). Asian American women also experienced stereotyping that applies to their ethnicity as well as to their gender. The passivity and eroticism associated with this stereotype affects Asian American women’s activism and leadership (Kawahara, Esnil, & Hsu, 2007), but violence against women has furnished an issue around which to organize, and Asian American women have become leaders in those organizations.

Asian American women have found it easier to identify themselves with feminists than women in Asia, where politics, religion, and culture form barriers to women’s political par- ticipation, economic independence, and physical safety (Stewart, Lal, & McGuire, 2011; Xu, 2009) and where feminism is a volatile topic (Niranjana, 2010). In modern India, women’s movements range in social class and scope, including local-level organizations to fi ght against caste-based discrimination and sexual violence, national-level organizations striving to elect more women to parliament, and organizations with international affi liations (Subramaniam, 2004). Despite the legal guarantee of equal rights in modern China, long- standing discrimination against women has been diffi cult to erase (Angeloff & Lieber, 2012). Initiatives over the past two decades have emphasized women’s rights, but controversy exists throughout the movement, including over the word to use to identify as a feminist (Stewart et al., 2011). Some Islamic feminists have argued that the Quran was originally interpreted

The Study of Gender 17

to allow women more equal rights (Coleman, 2011), but the growth of women’s rights has been slow in Muslim countries. However, Muslim women who have immigrated to Europe, Canada, and the United States are more openly feminist and have the goal of integrating their heritage with equality for women.

Feminism in the United States been guilty of exclusion based on race and social class, and the reluctance of women of color to identify themselves with White feminists was a result. Feminists within psychology were also guilty of ignoring these factors, but diversity became a goal within psychology (Stewart et al., 2011; Yoder & Kahn, 1993). Scholars used the same critical thinking that had led them to analyze the male bias in psychology to examine the biases within the psychology of women. As Nancy Felipe Russo (1998, p. ii) explained, “Feminist psychology is now beyond simply critiquing yesterday’s fi ndings. The challenge now is to build a knowledge base of theories, concepts, and methods to examine women’s lives in all of their diversity.” With the recognition that cross-cultural comparisons add to the study of women and gender, feminist psychologists value an inclusive psychology. Thus, diversity was not something that came quickly to the women’s movement or to psychology, but it is now a major focus for both.

The history of the men’s movement is shorter than that of the women’s movement (see Table 1.4 ), and the timing of that movement infl uenced its composition. Early men’s groups mostly tended to include privileged White men, but the Million Man March drew African American men together, and gay men continue to be active in pressing for changes in laws and social attitudes.

The men’s movement is less united than the women’s movement, encompassing more divergent perspectives. For example, the men’s movement is composed of both men who are antifeminist and those who are profeminist. Groups that aim to redefi ne masculinity often seek to promote changes in society to make it more inclusive. However, among antifeminist, conservative men’s groups, diversity is not a goal and racism may be a theme. Groups that promote a return to traditional masculinity do not strive to include diverse ethnicities, social classes, and sexual orientations among their members. Therefore, although the men’s move- ment has a history that refl ects more diversity than the women’s movement, some factions of the men’s movement reject goals of diversity.

Summary

Typically, the fi rst thing that parents learn about their child is the child’s sex, which high- lights the importance of sex and gender. Beliefs about gender differences are common, but opinions vary, with some people believing in minimal differences and others holding that the differences are maximal and part of essential biological differences.

Within psychology, gender research can be traced to the functionalist school that was infl uential during the late 1800s. This school held that men and women differ in ability and personality (a view that received criticism at that time). Interest in sex differences (and other individual differences) faded when the behaviorist school dominated psychology, but that interest persisted in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysts held that differences in anatomy produce personality differences in women and men, with women being inferior in a number of important ways. The feminist movement of the 1960s produced a resurgence of interest among psychologists concerning questions about gender, and research tended to question stereotypes about the sexes.

The traditional terminology—namely, the use of the term sex differences— has been criti- cized. By proposing use of the term gender, psychologists have tried to clarify the difference between socially determined and biologically determined differences. However, both terms continue in use, and the proposed distinction between sex differences, meaning biological

18 The Study of Gender

differences, and gender differences, meaning socially determined differences, has not yet come into consistent use.

Ethnic and economic diversity was not a focus during the early years of the women’s movement, which led women of color to experience diffi culties in labeling themselves as feminists but not in forming groups oriented toward positive change for women. The men’s movement has always been diverse, but some factions of the men’s movement object to gays, profeminists, and various ethnic groups. Therefore, diversity remains an issue in both women’s and men’s movements.

Glossary

behaviorism the school of psychology that emphasizes the importance of observable behavior as the subject matter of psychology and discounts the utility of unobserv- able mental events.

essentialist view the view that gender differences are biologically determined. functionalism a school of psychology arising in the United States in the late 1800s that

attempted to understand how the mind functions. Functionalists held a practical, applied orientation, including an interest in mental abilities and in gender differences in those abilities.

gender the term used by some researchers to describe the traits and behaviors that are regarded by the culture as appropriate to men and women.

maximalist view the view that many important differences exist between the sexes. minimalist view the view that few important differences exist between the sexes. sex differences the term used by some researchers (and considered to be inclusive by others)

to describe the differences between male and female research participants. structuralist a school of psychology arising in Europe in the 1880s that attempted to under-

stand the workings of the conscious mind by dividing the mind into component parts and analyzing the structure of the mind.

Suggested Readings

Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bem contends that gender provides a lens, and people view the world through this lens, often failing to notice

the distortions it produces. She discusses three such distorting lenses of gender: androcentrism, gender polariza- tion, and biological essentialism. Bem argues that viewing the world through these lenses provides the basis (and biases) for organizing gender knowledge.

Connell, R. W. (2005). Change among the gatekeepers: Men, masculinities, and gender equality in the global arena. Signs, 30 , 1801–1825. Connell points out that societal changes toward equality of women and men will require men’s participation,

because men control the resources and institutions that must change for equality to occur.

Marecek, Jeanne; Kimmel, Ellen B.; Crawford, Mary; & Hare-Mustin, Rachel T. (2003). Psychology of women and gender. In Donald K. Freedheim (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: History of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 249–268). New York: Wiley. This article explores the history of women in psychology by tracing the impact of female psychologists,

examining the contributions of feminist clinicians, and presenting the organizations through which women have infl uenced the profession of psychology.

Shields, Stephanie A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist, 30, 739–754. This lively article details the history of early psychologists’ research on gender differences, with all the biases

showing.

The Study of Gender 19

Suggested Websites

The American Psychological Association’s webpage makes a good starting place to explore gender issues in psy- chology. Examine the homepages for both Division 35, Society for the Psychology of Women (http://www.apa. org/about/division/div35) and Division 51, Society for the Study of Men and Masculinity (http://www.apa.org/ about/division/div51.aspx) to understand the mission of these divisions, their current activities, and how to join as well as links to other sites.

Many other organizations have homepages fi lled with information. The National Organization for Women maintains an extensive website (www.now.org), and the National Organization of Men against Sexism (www. nomas.org) also has a good website.

References

Anderson, Kristin J.; Kanner, Melinda; & Elsayegh, Nisreen. (2009). Are feminists man haters? Feminists’ and nonfeminists’ attitudes toward men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33 (2), 216–224.

Angeloff, Tania; & Lieber, Maryléne. (2012). Equality, did you say? China Perspectives, 2012 (4), 17–24. Barakso, Maryann; & Schaffner, Brian F. (2006). Winning coverage: News media portrayals of the women’s

movement, 1969–2004. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11 (4), 22–44. Bartkowski, John P. (2000). Breaking walls, raising fences: Masculinity, intimacy, and accountability among the

Promise Keepers. Sociology of Religion, 61 , 33–54. Baumli, Francis; & Williamson, Tom. (1997). History of the men’s movement . National Coalition of Free Men.

Retrieved November 24, 2006, from http://www.ncfm.org/hist.htm Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. (1993a). Is there a place in psychology for a feminist analysis of the social context? Feminism &

Psychology, 3 , 230–234. Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. (1993b). The lenses of gender . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bly, Robert. (1990). Iron John . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Buss, David; & Schmitt, David. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64 (9/10),

768–787. Cole, Johnnetta Betsch; & Guy-Sheftall, Beverly. (2003). Gender talk: The struggle for women’s equality in African

American communities . New York: Ballantine. Coleman, Isobel. (2011). The emergence of Islamic feminism. Foreign Service Journal, 88 (4), 27–32. Connell, Raewyn. (2012). Masculinity research and global change. Masculinity Research and Social Change, 1 (1),

4–18. doi:10–4471/MCS.2012.01. Connell, R. W. (2001, Winter). Studying men and masculinity. Resources for Feminist Research, 1/2 , 43–56. Connell, R. W. (2005). Change among the gatekeepers: Men, masculinities, and gender equality in the global

arena. Signs, 30, 1801–1825. Crawford, Mary; & Marecek, Jeanne. (1989). Psychology reconstructs the female, 1968–1988. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 13 , 147–165. Eagly, Alice H.; & Wood, Wendy. (2013). The nature-nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding

the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (3), 340–357. Ellison, Jo. (2013, April). Mrs. Carter uncut. Vogue UK . Retrieved October 25, 2015, from http://www.vogue.

co.uk/news/2013/04/04/beyonce-interview-may-vogue Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender and the social order . New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press. Espino, Adriana Medina. (2007). New democratic exercises in Mexican feminist organizations. In L. A. Durán,

N. D. Payne, & A. Russo (Eds.), Building feminist movements: Global perspectives (pp. 55–66). London, UK: Zed Books.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality . New York: Basic Books.

Flores, Lori A. (2008). A community of limits and the limits of community: MALDEF’s Chicana rights project, empowering the “typical Chicana,” and the question of civil rights, 1974–1983. Journal of American Ethnic History, 27 , 81–110.

Ford, John, Jr. (2004). How men’s movement participants view each other. Journal of Men’s Studies, 12 , 103–118.

20 The Study of Gender

Fowler, Lilly. (2009). It’s a Christian man’s world. Slate . Retrieved June 8, 2013, from http://www.slate.com/ articles/life/faithbased/2009/12/its_a_christian_mans_world.html

Freedman, Estelle B. (2002). No turning back: The history of feminism and the future of women . New York: Ballantine.

Freud, Sigmund. (1989). Some psychical consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. In P. Gay (Ed.), The Freud reader (pp. 670–678). New York: Norton. (Original work published in 1925).

Gelfer, Joseph. (2008). Identifying the Catholic men’s movement. Journal of Men’s Studies, 16 (1), 41–56. Gilligan, Carol. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development . Cambridge, MA: Har-

vard University Press. Good Men Project. (2013). About us. Retrieved June 8, 2013, from http://goodmenproject.com/about/ Haenfl er, Ross. (2004). Manhood in contradiction: The two faces of straight edge. Men and Masculinities, 7 ,

77–99. Hall, Elaine J.; & Rodriguez, Marnie Salupo. (2003). The myth of postfeminism. Gender & Society, 17 (6),

878–902. Jezebel. (2012, November 30). Katy Perry, Billboard’s woman of the year, is “not a feminist”. Retrieved June 6,

2013, from http://jezebel.com/5964727/katy-perry-billboards-woman-of-the-year-is-not-a-feminist Kawahara, Debra M.; Esnil, Edna M.; & Hsu, Jeanette. (2007). Asian American women leaders: The intersec-

tion of race, gender, and leadership. In J. L. Chin, B. Lott, J. K. Rice, & J. Sanchez-Hulces (Eds.), Women and leadership: Transforming visions and diverse voices (pp. 297–313). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Keen, Sam. (1991). A fi re in the belly: On being a man . New York: Bantam. Keller, Johannes. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its

relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 , 686–702.

Kimmel, Michael S.; & Messner, Michael A. (1992). Introduction. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (2nd ed., pp. 1–11). New York: Macmillan.

Konner, Melvin. (2015). Women after all: Sex, evolution, and the end of male supremacy . New York: Norton. Kreydatus, Beth. (2008). Confronting the “bra-burners”: Teaching radical feminism with a case study. The His-

tory Teacher, 41 (4), 489–504. Mandell, Nina. (2013, February 28). Marissa Mayer: I don’t think I would consider myself a feminist. Fast

Company . Retrieved November 15, 2015, from http://www.fastcompany.com/3006417/creative-conversations/ marissa-mayer-i-dont-think-i-would-consider-myself-feminist

Marecek, Jeanne; Kimmel, Ellen B.; Crawford, Mary; & Hare-Mustin, Rachel T. (2003). Psychology of women and gender. In Donald K. Freedheim (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: History of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 249–268). New York: Wiley.

Martin, Courtney E. (2007, November 26). Ugly, boring and angry? New Statesman . Retrieved June 23, 2009, from http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-faith-column/2007/11/stereotypes-feminism-feminists

McHugh, Maureen C.; Koeske, Randi D.; & Frieze, Irene H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research: A guide for researchers. American Psychologist, 41 , 879–890.

MediaMatters for America. (2005, June 24). Limbaugh defended his use of term “feminazi” as “right” and “accurate.” Author. Retrieved January 3, 2014, from http://mediamatters.org/research/200506240002

Messner, Michael A. (1997). Politics of masculinities: Men in movements . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Milar, Katharine S. (2000). The fi rst generation of women psychologists and the psychology of women. American

Psychologist, 55 , 616–619. Minton, Henry L. (2000). Psychology and gender at the turn of the century. American Psychologist, 55 , 613–615. Nachescu, Voichita. (2009). Radical feminism and the nation. Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 3 (1), 29–59. Newton, Judith. (2004). From panthers to Promise Keepers: Rethinking the men’s movement . New York: Rowman

& Littlefi eld. Niranjana, Tejaswini. (2010). Why culture matters: Rethinking the language of feminist politics. Inter-Asia

Cultural Studies, 11 (2), 229–235. Penny, Laurie. (2013). Feminism is the one F-word that makes eyes widen in polite company. New Statesman,

142 (5149), 27. Peoples, Whitney A. (2008). Under construction: Identifying foundations of hip-hop feminism and exploring

bridges between Black second-wave and hip-hop feminisms. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, 8 (1), 19–52.

The Study of Gender 21

Perez, Beverly Encarguez. (2003). Woman warrior meets mail-order bride: Finding an Asian American voice in the women’s movement. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, 18 , 211–236.

Pryzgoda, Jayde; & Chrisler, Joan C. (2000). Defi nitions of gender and sex: The subtleties of meaning. Sex Roles, 43 , 553–569.

Rodríguez, Mónica Russel Y. (2008). Accounting for MeXicana feminisms. American Ethnologist, 35 (2), 308–320.

Rosin, Hanna. (2010). The end of men. Atlantic Monthly, 306 (1), 56–72. Russo, Nancy Felipe. (1998). Editorial: Teaching about gender and ethnicity: Goals and challenges. Psychology

of Women Quarterly, 22 , i–vi. Schiebinger, Londa. (1999). Has feminism changed science ? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schultz, Duane P.; & Schultz, Sidney Ellen. (2012). A history of modern psychology (10th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Cengage. Schwyzer, Hugo. (2011). How men’s rights activists get feminism wrong. The Good Men Project . Retrieved Novem-

ber 15, 2015, from http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/how-the-mens-rights-activists-get-feminism-wrong/ Sherif, Carolyn W. (1982). Needed concepts in the study of gender identity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6 ,

375–398. Shields, Stephanie A. (1975a). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social

myth. American Psychologist, 30 , 739–754. Shields, Stephanie A. (1975b). Ms. Pilgrim’s progress: The contributions of Leta Stetter Hollingworth to the

psychology of women. American Psychologist, 30 , 852–857. Silverstein, Louise B.; Auerbach, Carl F.; Grieco, Loretta; & Dunk, Faith. (1999). Do Promise Keepers dream

of feminist sheep? Sex Roles, 40 , 665–688. Smiler, Andrew P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery of gender: Psychological concepts and measures of

masculinity. Sex Roles, 50 , 15–26. Smith, Andrea. (2005). Native American feminism, sovereignty, and social change. Feminist Studies, 31 ,

116–132. Sommers, Christina Hoff. (2008). Feminism and freedom. American Spectator, 41 (6), 52–62. Stewart, Aligail J.; Lal, Jayati; & McGuire, Kristin. (2011). Expanding the archives of global feminisms: Narra-

tives of feminism and activism. Signs, 36 (4), 889–914. Strapagiel, Lauren. (2013). Men’s rights movement sees resurgence among millennial males. Huffi ngton Post

Canada . Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.huffi ngtonpost.ca/2013/04/15/mens-rights-millennial- males-canada_n_3061876.html

Subramaniam, Mangala. (2004). A symposium: Bridging scholarship: The Indian women’s movement. Contem- porary Sociology, 33 (6), 635–639.

Tavris, Carol. (1992). The mismeasure of woman . New York: Simon & Schuster. Tavris, Carol; & Wade, Carole. (1984). The longest war: Sex differences in perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Har-

court Brace Jovanovich. Thompson, Becky. (2002). Multiracial feminism: Recasting the chronology of second wave feminism. Feminist

Studies, 28 , 337–360. Unger, Rhoda K. (1979). Toward a redefi nition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34 , 1085–1094. Unger, Rhoda K. (1983–1984). Sex in psychological paradigms—From behavior to cognition. Imagination,

Cognition, and Personality, 3 , 227–234. Unger, Rhoda K. (1995). Conclusion: Cultural diversity and the future of feminist psychology. In H. Landrine

(Ed.), Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology (pp. 413–431). Washington, DC: American Psychologi- cal Association.

Walsh, Mary Roth. (1985). Academic professional women organizing for change: The struggle in psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 41 (4), 17–28.

Weisstein, Naomi. (1970). “Kinde, küche, kirche” as scientifi c law: Psychology constructs the female. In R. Morgan (Ed.), Sisterhood is powerful: An anthology of writings from the women’s liberation movement (pp. 228–245). New York: Vintage Books.

Xu, Feng. (2009). Chinese feminisms encounter international feminisms. International Feminist Journal of Poli- tics, 11 (2), 196–215.

Yoder, Janice D.; & Kahn, Arnold S. (1993). Working toward an inclusive psychology of women. American Psychologist, 48 , 846–850.

Headline: “Does Gender Matter?” Nature, July 13, 2006

During the time Lawrence Summers was the president of Harvard University, he made remarks contending that women’s progress in scientifi c careers has been slow because women may lack the talent to succeed in science and engineering. His remarks were incendiary, causing a fi restorm of protest (as well as voices of support). The suggestion that women’s lack of intrinsic ability is to blame for their underrepresentation in science and engineering shows the tendency to resort to biological essentialism to explain gender differences. Indeed, Summers mentioned social factors and discrimination as less important than intrinsic abil- ity for success in academic science careers (“Remarks at NBER,” 2005). This tendency to focus on innate differences and to downplay social factors is one way that people maintain stereotypes and prejudice (Keller, 2005). Neuroscientist Ben Barres (2006) responded to Summers’s remarks by questioning if a scientist’s gender matters.

Barres (2006) contended that discrimination is widespread in science, but neither men nor women want to believe that the practice is common. People prefer to believe that evaluations are unbiased and that success is based on merit. Barres’s contentions of discrimination come from his unique point of view as a scientist—he was born female, trained in neuroscience and began an academic career when he was a woman, underwent the process of changing his sex to male, and continued his career in neuroscience as a man. His experience included many instances of discrimination during his years as a woman in science. For example, he heard one of his colleagues (who was unaware of his surgery) comment “Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister’s” (in Barres, 2006, p. 134).

Barres became suspicious of the claims of innate superiority from those who were advan- taged by such claims. Instead, he argued that the evidence does not indicate innate superi- ority of any group in science. The arguments by Barres, Summers, and others represent a recent episode in the ongoing controversy of women’s place in science, but the controversies in science go even deeper. For the past several decades, there has been a “science war” that has debated the basic conceptions of science and its continued value in the modern world (Gould, 2000). Feminist scholars have been part of that debate, and gender has been one of its major topics. To understand this current battle and its impact on gender research, we must fi rst understand the background of science and some of the procedures and limitations in its methods.

How Science Developed

Modern science arose in the 16th and 17th centuries and came to prominence during the 19th century, bringing about radical changes in ways of knowing and understanding the world (Caplan & Caplan, 2016; Komath, 2008). Instead of looking to religion and the Bible

Researching Sex and Gender 2

Researching Sex and Gender 23

for knowledge and wisdom, science looked to knowledge gathered through observation. This view represented a radical departure from traditional thought. This new scientifi c view assumed that the world works by a set of natural laws and that these laws can be discovered by careful, objective investigation (Dear, 2005).

The methods of science depended on empirical observation , gathering information through evidence from the senses, and objectivity , the notion that the observation is free of bias by the observer. Critics have argued that science has fallen short of this ideal, suggest- ing that the required level of objectivity may not be possible (Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008). Scientists work to avoid bringing their personal views and biases into their research, but this goal is diffi cult to attain. Many fail, which keeps their studies from being objective.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, science proliferated in Europe and spread through- out the Western world. Research in chemistry, physics, biology, and medicine created new products, medicines, and industries. This proliferation of science was related to the social and political context of Europe, but the development of technology based on science was an important factor in the adoption of the scientifi c method by other cultures (Komath, 2008). The social sciences of psychology, sociology, and anthropology developed as part of the growing enthusiasm for science. These social sciences used the natural sciences as models, adopting the same assumptions and methods.

What is necessary to conduct scientifi c research? What makes scientifi c investigation dif- ferent from other ways of gaining knowledge? What techniques do scientists use to accom- plish these goals, and what are the limitations for each? The following sections explore these questions, with an emphasis on the social sciences, and then examine the critiques of science that have led to the current “science wars.”

Photo 2.1 Increasing girls’ participation in science is a fi rst step toward increasing the number of female scientists.

24 Researching Sex and Gender

Approaches to Research

The major approaches to research consist of quantitative and qualitative methods. The tra- ditional methods fall into the quantitative approach, which follows the empiricist principles based on observation and quantitative data collection. The procedure of quantifi cation includes turning observations into numbers, referred to as quantitative research . Numbers form the data for quantitative research. Data are not the same as the observed phenomenon, but rather are representations of some facet of the phenomenon the researcher considered important. For example, a researcher interested in attitudes toward gay men might ask people to rate their feelings about gay men based on a description of characteristics and behaviors furnished by the researcher. These ratings might range from very negative to very positive on a 7-point scale. Thus, the data for this study would be numbers obtained from each participant’s rating, and each number would represent a participant’s attitude in this research study. Quantitative researchers usually analyze their studies by performing statistical analyses of their data.

Some scholars believe that quantitative research fails to capture important aspects of the situations under study; that is, something is lost in the process of turning observations into numbers. These researchers choose qualitative research , which focuses on understanding the complexity of the situation rather than trying to reduce the situation to numbers. In addi- tion to a different philosophy of research, qualitative studies include some different methods.

Any particular research question may be approached using a number of different meth- ods, and each has advantages and disadvantages. Thus, researchers must not only choose a quantitative or qualitative approach but also examine their research question and decide which method is appropriate.

Quantitative Research Methods

The method of collecting information is critically important in science. By following spe- cifi c rules, researchers collect information that meets the requirements of science. Scientifi c information must be observable not only to the researcher but also to others; that is, it must be observable by anyone. This requirement is intended to minimize bias and lead to some level of objectivity.

Another rule of gathering information in science requires systematic observation; scientists must follow some plan or system to gather information. Everyone makes observations, but most people in most circumstances do so in a personal, nonsystematic way, which can lead people to notice certain things while ignoring others. This selective perception may result in distortion and bias. Scientists strive to be systematic in their observations in order to gather information that more accurately refl ects the situations they have observed. This procedure does not mean that scientists are free of personal biases; as humans, they are subject to the same perceptual distortions (and even biases) as other humans. Although they cannot avoid personal opinions, scientists are supposed to strive to treat information fairly (Gould, 2000; Mahoney, 2003). Working with observable information and adopting a systematic plan to gather data are strategies to help researchers minimize bias.

The use of numbers in quantitative research has led to an erroneous impression about science—namely, that science is precise. People tend to believe that numbers lend precision, when actually numbers are only one way to summarize certain characteristics of a situation. The process of quantifi cation does not make science precise; it really does the opposite, omitting some aspects of the situation and concentrating on only one.

For example, a researcher who is interested in investigating campus attitudes toward gay, lesbian, and bisexual students might choose to study how such students rate their college

Researching Sex and Gender 25

campus. The researcher might ask students to rate their progress toward a degree, how their instructors interact with them, how they are treated in the dorms, whether they have ever been threatened by other students, and other such questions. The data might consist of rating each question on a scale ranging from 1 to 7; these numerical ratings would be the data. The researcher can analyze these numbers to determine the results of the study, but the process of turning people’s attitudes and experiences into numbers loses many details of their feelings and experiences.

An additional narrowing of the observations in science comes from the specifi cation of a variable or several variables in research studies. A variable is the factor of interest in a research study. The term comes from the notion that the factor varies or potentially has more than one value (as opposed to a constant, which has only one value). Most things vary, so fi nding a variable of interest is not nearly as diffi cult as restricting a study to only a few variables. For example, variables include family income, level of anxiety, number of hours of practice, gender of participants, and so forth. Studies typically include only a few variables, and this restriction limits what researchers know about a situation. Researchers often use an operational defi nition , which is a defi nition of a variable in terms of the operations used to obtain data on that variable rather than in terms of the concepts underlying the variable. Operational defi nitions are one method that researchers use to be more specifi c about the variables they study. An operational defi nition provides instructions about how to measure the variables in quantitative studies.

Quantitative research can be divided into two types: descriptive and experimental. Each approach has advantages and limitations that the other does not. Descriptive research methods help investigators answer “what” questions. That is, descriptive research can tell what types of things exist, including great detail about those things and even the extent of relationships among various things. Experimental research is highly prized because a care- fully conducted experiment allows researchers to draw conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships. This type of information is diffi cult to obtain through any other method, and psychology researchers conduct experimental studies if they can do so (Wertz, 2011). How- ever, this method has requirements that make it impossible to use in all research situations.

Experimental Designs

To obtain information about cause and effect, researchers do experiments . This type of design allows researchers to answer “why” questions—questions with answers that involve explana- tions rather than descriptions. An experiment involves the manipulation of one factor, called the independent variable (IV) , and the measurement of another factor, called the dependent variable (DV) , while attempting to hold all other factors constant. The researcher is trying to determine if manipulating the IV will produce a change in the value of the DV.

Although the logic of experimental design is simple, creating conditions to effectively manipulate one factor while holding all other factors constant is far from simple. Such a situation would be almost impossible in a naturalistic setting, because any one change would result in many others. Therefore, almost all experiments take place in laboratories. These settings offer the possibility of the necessary control, but they open experiments to the criti- cism of artifi ciality. This situation limits the extent to which researchers can generalize their results to other situations. The artifi ciality of the situation and its limitations in generalizing results to other situations are drawbacks of the experimental method.

Despite some disadvantages, researchers favor experiments because, when carefully designed and conducted, this method allows conclusions to be made concerning causality. Researchers prize this type of information, leading scientists to choose experiments if practi- cal and ethical considerations allow them to do so.

26 Researching Sex and Gender

Ex Post Facto Studies

Researchers cannot always perform experiments because, for either practical or ethical rea- sons, some variables of interest are beyond possible manipulation. For example, researchers might want to know about the effect of biological sex on speed at solving math problems. To do an experiment, researchers would be required to select a group of people and manipu- late biological sex as the independent variable. Obviously, this research is impossible or at least impractical and certainly unethical. However, the question that prompted it—Does sex infl uence the speed of solving math problems?—is still of interest. Sexual orientation is similar; it is a variable of interest, but researchers cannot manipulate sexual orientation by assigning people to groups and changing their sexual orientation.

A strategy for conducting this research is the ex post facto study (or natural experiment) . In this type of study, researchers would select a group of men and contrast their performance with a group of women. Both groups would participate in the math test. Therefore, biological sex would be the subject variable (or participant variable )—the characteristic of interest in the participants—and the speed of solving the math problems would be the dependent variable.

Such an ex post facto study would not be a true experiment, because the researchers did not (1) create the difference in biological sex while (2) holding all other factors constant. Instead, the researchers entered the picture after the difference in participants existed. With no opportunity for precision in creating the values of the independent variable or in holding other factors constant, the ex post facto study lacks the controls of an experiment that would allow researchers to draw conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships (Christensen, Johnson, & Turner, 2014).

Ex post facto studies and experiments involve a contrast of two or more groups and measurement of a dependent variable. These similarities can lead to misinterpretations of these studies and incorrect attributions of causality. Researchers are usually careful to use the correct language to interpret their fi ndings from ex post facto studies, but people who read the research may not be appropriately cautious, leading to misunderstandings of research fi ndings from ex post facto studies.

Biological sex, gender, and sexual orientation of participants are all subject variables, characteristics of the participants that exist prior to their taking part in a study. These char- acteristics can be the basis for division of participants into contrasting groups, but they can- not be independent variables. The ex post facto design has a long history in psychology and has constituted the traditional approach to gender research. In 1974 psychologists Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Nagy Jacklin published The Psychology of Sex Differences, a comprehen- sive review of research-based psychological fi ndings about gender-related differences. These authors collected more than 2,000 studies in which gender was a subject variable, and they organized the fi ndings around different topics, such as aggression and verbal ability. Mac- coby and Jacklin then evaluated the fi ndings for each topic, determining how many studies failed to fi nd a difference, how many studies supported a difference, and the direction of the differences for those comparisons that showed differences. Maccoby and Jacklin’s book was soon accepted as a classic in this type of research review.

Studies with gender as a subject variable remain a common choice in researching gender and sexual orientation, but it is important to keep in mind that the thousands of studies with gender as a subject variable are also ex post facto studies. Thus, all of the limitations of this method apply to those studies. That is, these studies do not and cannot reveal that biological sex, gender, or sexual orientation causes differences in any behavior. This caution is diffi cult for many people to keep in mind, and those who are not familiar with research methods have a tendency to believe that gender-related differences in behavior have biological sex as the underlying cause (Keller, 2005). This reasoning contains two errors: (1) incorrectly

Researching Sex and Gender 27

attributing causality to a research method that cannot demonstrate cause-and-effect rela- tionships and (2) reducing the many variables that coexist with biological sex to the subject variable gender. Therefore, an erroneous interpretation of such studies can lead people to conclusions for which there is no research evidence.

Figure 2.1 illustrates some of the differences between experimental and ex post facto designs, using sexual orientation as an example. In the experimental design, researchers often randomly divide the participants into groups in order to keep individual differences equal among the groups. Random assignment would be very unlikely to yield groups based on sexual orientation. The ex post facto design, on the other hand, assigns participants to groups on the basis of some factor that the participants already possess, such as sexual orientation or gender. This research design is the most common approach in the study of gender-related differences and similarities.

Gender can be an independent variable in an experiment if the researcher manipulates gen- der in a description of some target person whom the participants rate, evaluate, or react to. This approach makes gender a social category rather than a characteristic of an individual. Therefore, experimental designs can study gender as a social category to which participants react but not as a characteristic of participants. These experimental and ex post facto approaches are not equivalent, and each yields information that requires careful interpretation of fi ndings.

Unlike experimental and ex post facto studies, other types of quantitative research do not concentrate on comparisons and differences. Instead, these methods focus on describ- ing characteristics or attitudes of participants, determining the relationship (correlation) between variables, and other descriptions of variables. These variables may include gen- der, sexual orientation, or many others; these methods fi t within the category of descriptive research . Surveys and correlational studies are examples of such descriptive methods.

Surveys

In a survey , researchers construct questions, choose a group of people to respond to the questions, collect the data, and analyze the data to yield results. This method sounds decep- tively simple; almost anyone can think of questions to ask. However, the method is fi lled

Figure 2.1 Two Designs with Sexual Orientation as a Variable

28 Researching Sex and Gender

with choices and pitfalls. For example, researchers using this method must decide about the wording of questions (e.g., “Do you agree . . .” versus “Do you disagree . . .”), the answer format (respondents give answers in their own words versus respondents choose from a set of answers), the appearance of the questionnaire (number of pages, size of type, page layout), the choice of participants (representative of the entire population versus a select group, such as fi rst-time parents or gay men), the number of people needed (what number will give a good estimate for accuracy), and the method of administration (face-to-face interview, tele- phone interview, mailed questionnaire, or Internet posting). Unwise choices on any of these decisions may result in a survey that does not allow the researcher to answer the question that prompted the research or, worse, may give the researcher an answer that is misleading.

The main limitation of surveys is inherent in the method: Surveys pose questions rather than make direct measurements. That is, surveys rely on self-reports rather than direct obser- vations of behavior, which requires participants to be both honest when they are asked about their attitudes and opinions and to have a good memory when they are asked to report on past behavior. Both tasks may present problem: People may lie, withhold the truth, or sim- ply not know or remember the information. In addition, participants’ beliefs about social standards and their tendency to present themselves in a favorable way are biases that can invalidate a question or even an entire survey. The topics that gender researchers investigate are especially prone to this problem. Despite the wide variety of information that can be obtained through the survey method, that information is limited not only by its descriptive nature but also by its potential inaccuracy.

Despite the disadvantages, surveys offer the advantages of allowing researchers to ask peo- ple about things that the researchers could not easily (or possibly ethically) observe directly. Thus, the method is fl exible and useful in a variety of situations. Surveys are very commonly used for measuring people’s attitudes. Psychologists, sociologists, market researchers, and political pollsters all use this method to help decide how people feel about a wide variety of issues.

Correlational Studies

If researchers want to know about the relationship between two specifi c variables rather than information about several variables, they may conduct a correlational study , another type of descriptive method. Correlational studies allow researchers to determine both the strength and types of relationships between the variables under study.

To conduct a correlational study, researchers must choose two variables, create an opera- tional defi nition of the variables, measure these variables, and then analyze the relation- ship between them. To perform the analysis of the data, researchers calculate a correlation coeffi cient. The results reveal the strength or magnitude of the relationship between two variables, expressed with a number that varies between +1.00 and −1.00. Correlations that are close to +1.00 indicate a strong positive relationship, which means that as scores on one variable increase, those on the other also increase. Correlations that are close to −1.00 indicate a strong negative relationship, which means that as one measurement increases, the other decreases. Correlations that are close to 0.00 indicate little or no relationship between the two variables.

Like other descriptive methods, correlational studies do not reveal why the relationship exists. However, making such deductions may be very tempting. Indeed, a causal relation- ship may exist between two variables that have a high correlation, but the method does not allow that conclusion to be made. Even a high correlation would not allow a researcher to know the source of the relationship: Did changes in one variable produce changes in the other, or vice versa? Another possibility is that both variables may be causally related to a

Researching Sex and Gender 29

third variable that was not part of the study. A conclusion of causality is not legitimate on the basis of the evidence from a correlational study, but these studies allow researchers to describe the existence and strength of relationships.

In summary, different quantitative research methods yield different types of information. Experimental research allows researchers to explain why a relationship exists between inde- pendent variables and dependent variables because this method yields information about cause-and-effect relationships. The ex post facto study (or natural experiment) is similar to an experiment in the designation of variables (called subject or participant variables) and dependent variables, but these designs differ from true experiments in that they use the existing values of the subject variable rather than create the values of the independent vari- able through manipulation. Descriptive research methods include surveys and correlational studies. Such studies help to answer questions about what occurs; that is, they describe what exists but reveal no information about causality.

Qualitative Research Methods

Researchers who use qualitative methods often believe that the quantifi cation process removes important information from the research process. This belief leads qualitative researchers to collect different data and to resist reducing their data to numbers. The data for qualitative research are narratives, not numbers. Such researchers may collect extensive reports or inter- views, which they transcribe and attempt to organize and understand. This strategy makes statistical analysis diffi cult or impossible.

Qualitative researchers also reject the notion that they should be detached and impartial; instead, they accept the subjectivity of the research process and attempt to form coopera- tive relationships with those whom they study. By interacting with research participants as equals, they try to understand the meaning and context of the phenomena they study. Some researchers advocate an even more active role, striving to bring a voice to individuals and groups that have been pushed to the margins and striving to change social and political situations (Zavos & Biglia, 2009).

The methods of qualitative research are not necessarily different from those of quantitative research. That is, the methods themselves do not create qualitative or quantitative research; the key to the difference is the type of data collected. However, qualitative researchers tend to use a different selection of methods than quantitative researchers, including case studies, interviews, ethnography, and focus groups.

Case Studies

A case study is an intensive study of a case—that is, a single person or a small sample of people. Several different factors determine which case might be a good candidate for study. The person may be typical and thus refl ective of many other people, or the person may be unusual and thus of interest. The unusual cases are more common for case studies. Researchers conducting case studies often spend days or months interviewing or observing in order to write a case study.

Interviews

Interviews can take many forms, but qualitative interviews differ from interviews con- ducted as part of survey research in both format and goals. Survey interviews are quantita- tive, including a uniform set of questions to which all respondents reply. The uniformity of responses allows statistical analysis, but such analysis is not the usual goal of qualitative

30 Researching Sex and Gender

interviews. These interviews can take the form of oral or life histories, or the interview may be oriented around a narrower topic.

Ethnography

Ethnography , one of the most common qualitative methods, has a long tradition in anthro- pology, in which qualitative research has been more common than in psychology. However, this method is compatible with research in psychology—observation and recording of behavior and events (Wertz, 2011). Researchers using this method spend time becoming immersed in the situation they are studying, which necessitates attention to context. For anthropologists, this situation is typically another culture; for psychologists and sociolo- gists, the situation may be a school, company, or hospital. By becoming part of the situa- tion, the researcher can gather and interpret information situated in the context in which it occurs.

Focus Groups

The focus group is another qualitative method that psychologists have borrowed; this method is more common in communications and marketing research than in psychology (Kleiber, 2004). A focus group is a discussion centered on a specifi c topic. The group can consist either of people brought together for the purpose of the discussion or of people who belong to some existing group, such as a family or sorority. Groups usually consist of six to eight people, but are rarely more than 12. Focus groups are similar to interviews in terms of the questions and topics that can be explored. However, this method allows group members to interact with each other as well as with the researcher, making the focus group more similar to naturally occurring situations than the interview method is (Wilkinson, 1999).

Table 2.1 presents both quantitative and qualitative research methods, along with advan- tages and limitations of each approach.

Table 2.1 Advantages and Limitations of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods

Method Advantage Limitation

Quantitative Methods

Survey Examines a variety of topics without being intrusive

Relies on self-reports rather than direct observation of behavior

Correlational study

Allows determination of strength and direction of relationship between two variables

Cannot reveal any information about causality

Experiment Allows determination of cause-and-effect relationships

Conducted in laboratory situations that are artifi cial; can investigate only a few variables at a time

Qualitative Methods

Case study Reveals extensive information about one case Cannot be generalized to other cases

Interview Allows researchers to question participants extensively about a topic

Does not yield a standard set of answers; may include only a few participants

Ethnography Allows researchers to become immersed in a situation and to understand the contexts in which behavior occurs

Data collection is not systematic, which may lead to focusing on some and overlooking other information

Focus group Allows extensive exploration of a topic as well as observation of the interaction among group members

Does not yield a standard set of data, making the information diffi cult to analyze

Researching Sex and Gender 31

Researchers’ Choices The use of qualitative research methods expanded in anthropology and sociology to the point of being labeled a revolution (Wertz, 2011), but the fi eld of psychology has been less acceptant of qualitative methods. Within psychology, gender researchers have been more acceptant than some other fi elds, but these methods still constitute a minority of the research, even in the area of gender (Marchel & Owens, 2007). Researchers steeped in the quantitative tradition may fail to accept qualitative investigations as “legitimate” research (Weil, 2008). An analysis of two leading journals, Feminism & Psychology and Psychology of Women Quarterly , revealed that the interview method was the most com- mon qualitative approach (Wilkinson, 1999). It accounted for over 50% of the research articles in Feminism & Psychology but only 17% of research articles in Psychology of Women Quarterly. Other qualitative methods accounted for much lower percentages, and no other qualitative method represented more than 2% of the research studies in these journals. A more recent analysis (Marchel & Owens, 2007) reported increased use of qualitative methods over the past two decades in some psychology journals, especially those that focus on interdisciplinary areas in which qualitative research is more readily accepted. For example, qualitative methods now represent about 8% of the research published in the journal Sex Roles (Zosuls, Miller, Ruble, Martin, & Fabes, 2011). However, the majority of psychology research remains quantitative research—even those studies published in journals featuring feminist scholarship.

Qualitative research offers alternatives to traditional quantitative research methods in terms of philosophy and methods. A comparison of the two approaches appears in Table 2.2 . Qualitative researchers emphasize context and acknowledge that subjectivity is part of the research process; they become involved in the research situation, interact with participants in order to understand the patterns of their behavior, and sometimes endeavor to bring about change in the situations they research (Zavos & Biglia, 2009). Researchers who use these methods believe that this approach offers advantages over the traditional quantitative approach, and the rise of qualitative research has polarized the teaching of research methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Some researchers see no room for qualitative research (Capaldi & Proctor, 2005), whereas others (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005) have called for a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods as a pragmatic way to approach social science research.

Table 2.2 Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Quantitative Researchers Qualitative Researchers

Often work in laboratories Rarely work in laboratories

Strive to detach themselves from the situation to attain objectivity

Immerse themselves in the situation and accept subjectivity as part of the process

Attempt to study a representative group of individuals to be able to generalize

May seek unusual individuals because they are interesting cases

Create a distinction between researchers and participants

Treat participants as equals

Collect data in the form of numbers Collect information that is not reduced to numbers

Attempt to control the infl uence of variables other than the independent variable(s)

Attempt to understand the complexity of the situation as it exists

Use statistics to analyze their data Do not use statistics to analyze their information

32 Researching Sex and Gender

Gender Bias in Research Despite the long history and success of science, some modern scholars have questioned its assumptions and procedures, starting what has become known as the “science wars” (Gould, 2000). One criticism is that science grew not only from the activities of men but also from a gendered, masculine bias that is inherently part of science. According to this view, this mas- culine bias affects our modern conception of science, including the thinking of the men and women who do scientifi c work. Harvard President Lawrence Summers expressed this bias when he suggested that women may be inherently less capable of being scientists than men are.

Another criticism of science contends that science is incapable of revealing an objec- tive picture of the natural world because objective reality does not exist. These critics are constructionists , who emphasize the subjective nature of all knowledge, including scien- tifi c knowledge. The constructionists argue that “we do not discover reality, we invent it” (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988, p. 455). That is, science does not lead researchers to map a realistic picture of the world but to construct views of the world in ways that refl ect social and personal perceptions and biases. Scholars who take this view have cited the study of gender as a particularly good example of the distortions and misrepresentations of science.

Gendered Voices: My Trouble with Girls

At a conference for female scientists in Korea, biochemist Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt made a remark that made news around the world: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry” (in Thomason, 2015, p. 1). Reporting on this remark made headlines and started a social media backlash. Female scientists started a Twitter campaign (hashtag #distractinglysexy) that included sarcastic remarks and photos of them at work with decidedly unsexy outfi ts in unsexy situations. Hunt later claimed that his remarks were intended as a joke and that he had always been supportive of women in science; his remarks were taken the wrong way (Boyle, 2015). However, the controversy raged for months.

Sources of Bias

Bias can enter research at many levels, beginning with the very framework of science. The philosophers whose work spurred the founding of science were all men, and Evelyn Fox Keller (1985) argued that these philosophers introjected a masculine bias into the very conceptual foundation of science. She interpreted the emphasis on rationality and objectivity in science as masculine values, and she contrasted those masculine elements of science with the femi- nine elements of nature—feeling and subjectivity. Keller discussed what she interpreted as the gendering of science and nature: masculine for science and feminine for nature. Thus, even at its inception, science carried connotations of maleness, rationality, and dominance. According to Keller, not only have women been discouraged from the pursuit of science as a profession, but also the activity of science itself suggests masculinity (see According to the Media and According to the Research). The culture of science was and remains masculine (Schiebinger, 2007; Schiebinger & Schraudner, 2011), and female scientists cite this as more important than innate ability for women’s exclusion from science careers (van Anders, 2004).

Theories are another potential source of bias in science. The study of gender is full of examples in which speculations and theories have attained a status in which they are mistaken for results. Freud’s theory is probably the most prominent example, with its emphasis on the importance

Researching Sex and Gender 33

of biological sex differences in building personality. Research has not supported this theory (see Chapter 5 for more on Freud), and supporters of the theory speak with unearned authority.

Additional bias in research on gender (and many other topics) comes from the procedures involved in planning studies and evaluating results. Researchers’ values enter the research process as early as the planning stage of studies, infl uencing the choice of problem to inves- tigate and the choice of questions to ask (Harding & Norberg, 2005; Rolin, 2004). Publica- tions place too much emphasis on results and too little emphasis on the conceptualization of the questions underlying the research process, often ignoring the social and political aspects and implications of research (Harding, 2001; Harding & Norberg, 2005). The answers that researchers fi nd depend on the questions they ask; the planning and questioning aspects of the process are critically important, therefore, but often neglected.

When researchers formulate their studies, they ask questions and choose methods of gathering information that will allow them to answer their questions. Most researchers know what they expect to fi nd when they ask a question, so research is not free of the values and expectations of the scientists, even at this stage of the research (Cisneros-Puebla & Faux, 2008). In quantitative research, these expectations lead to the formulation of a hypothesis , a statement about the expected outcome of the study. Researchers test hypotheses by gather- ing data and analyzing them to obtain results. The researchers can then decide whether the results support or fail to support their hypothesis.

To evaluate the data collected from studies, quantitative researchers usually use statistical tests. Many different statistical tests exist, but all of those used to evaluate research data have a common goal—to allow the researcher to decide whether the results are statistically signifi cant. A statistically signifi cant result is one due to reasons other than chance alone. If the analysis indicates that the effects are statistically signifi cant, then the researchers can conclude that their results were not due to chance alone—that is, the study worked as hypothesized. If the analysis does not indicate a signifi cant effect, then the researchers cannot claim that their results are due to anything but chance, so the study did not work. Researcher bias may enter both at the stage of planning and at the point of data analysis. For example, an analysis of many studies on the topic of gender development (Tennenbaum & Leaper, 2002) revealed that studies with male fi rst authors showed larger gender differences than studies with female fi rst authors. In addi- tion, scientifi c training does not override this type of bias (Morton, Haslam, Postmes, & Ryan, 2006), which suggests that gender research is especially vulnerable to scientists’ personal biases.

Researchers are constrained from making claims about factors that do not produce signifi - cant results, because these results are not considered “real,” and researchers are not allowed to accept the validity of nonsignifi cant results. Although a statistically signifi cant result gives confi dence that the result is not due to chance, the term signifi cant may be misleading. People who are not sophisticated in the logic of statistical evaluation may believe that statistically signifi cant means important or large.

A large or important result is not only statistically signifi cant but also signifi cant in practi- cal terms. The concepts of statistical signifi cance and practical signifi cance are not the same. A result is statistically signifi cant when it is unlikely to have occurred solely on the basis of chance. A result has practical signifi cance when it is important to everyday life. For example, a low correlation can indicate a statistically signifi cant relationship if the number of people participating in the study was suffi ciently large (what constitutes a large sample varies with the design and statistic), but this signifi cant relationship does not indicate a strong relationship between the two variables in the correlation. That is, this correlation would have little practical signifi cance. Confusion between these two concepts can result: “Reasonable people who are repeatedly exposed to fi ndings reported as signifi cant mean differences or nonchance factors . . . sometimes begin to think and talk as if those differences were actually true in most individual cases” (Bernstein, 1999, p. x). Such misunderstandings can lead people to believe that results mean more than they actually do and apply to everyone when they actually do not.

34 Researching Sex and Gender

According to the Media . . . Scientists Are Men (or Act Like Men)

In the movies, scientists are most often male and are more often mad or bad than good. If they are good, they are generally bumbling incompetents. These depictions go back to the era of silent fi lm and continue to the present in movies and on television. “The movies have always been full of insane chemists, demonic doctors and obsessive inventors who, whether purposely or inadvertently, unleash malevolent forces that neither they nor anyone else can control” (Ribalow, 1998, p. 26). Some scientists in the movies want to do evil, but even with noble motivations, movie scientists often cause serious problems when they fail to understand the implications of their actions. Both evil and well-meaning scientists are portrayed as obsessive, self-centered, person- ally cold, and removed from society.

Women have been in the background more often than playing leading characters in media portrayals of science (Losh, 2008). In children’s science programming, about 80% of the women appear in secondary or supporting roles, and the proportion of male to female scientists was two to one (Steinke & Long, 1996). That proportion is similar in feature fi lms that appeared between 1991 and 2001 (Steinke, 2005), mak- ing women much less frequent media scientists than men.

Female scientists are not “mad scientists” or bungling nerds as often as male scientists (Flicker, 2003). They may be evil but are more likely to be masculine women, “old maids,” world experts, or lonely heroines. The masculine women and unmarried women who have given up on romance were more common in older films. During the 1990s, the female scientist became the “brainy babe” (Ribalow, 1998). This female version of the scientist was sometimes the extraor- dinarily talented expert, such as the female scientists in Thor: The Dark World , Gravity , and The Martian or the lonely heroine, such as Dr. Ellie Arroway (in Contact ), Dr. Emma Russell (in The Saint ), and Elizabeth Shaw (in Prometheus ). A variety of female scientists who are brainy babes obsessively dedicated to their work appear on TV as Abby Sciuto in NCIS and as Dr. Temperance “Bones” Brennan in Bones .

Although female scientists have begun to be portrayed as brainy and compe- tent (Steinke, 2005), they are defi nitely babes: Female scientists in fi lm and on television tend to be young and extraordinarily good looking (Flicker, 2003). Indeed, many are too young to be the world-class experts they portray. However, female scientists often have to withstand challenges from their male colleagues, who question their competence and make sexist remarks. Romance has been a common theme for these movie scientists, but family and children have not. Most female scientists in fi lms have been unmarried, and the married female scientists tend to be childless.

To sum up, female scientists appear much less frequently than male scientists in the movies. When they appear, they are portrayed as driven, outspoken, obsessive, and dedicated—characteristics common to male scientists.

Researching Sex and Gender 35

According to the Research . . . Women in Science Face Barriers

The images of female scientists in the media may furnish models for girls and thus help to orient girls to pursue careers in science and engineering, a goal that has proven diffi cult. However, some of the portrayals do not present enticing images of scientifi c careers, and thus the media image of female scientists may discourage girls from pur- suing such careers (Jones, 2005).

Depictions of female scientists have increased in the movies, and that change is accurate: The number of women working in science and engineering has increased over the past 35 years. An analysis of feature fi lms (Steinke, 2005) indicated that about one-third of fi lms that portrayed scientists or engineers included women in those roles, which is actually higher than the 20% of women working in these fi elds (Kohlstedt, 2004). It is easier to become a female scientist in the movies than in real life.

The frequency of female scientists in the media is not the only inaccuracy of science at the movies, but male scientists receive worse treatment than their female counter- parts. Male scientists appear as inept social bunglers or evil geniuses (Jackson, 2008). Female fi lm scientists appear professional and competent (Steinke, 2005), which is correct, but male scientists are also professional and competent. Unfortunately, the portrayals of challenges to that competence and harassment by male colleagues are also correct.

Reports from female scientists (Rosser, 2012; Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006) have revealed that women in science face barriers that their male colleagues do not. Two of those barriers appear in fi lms about female scientists: challenges to competence and sexual harassment. Such negative experiences were more common among women in the natural sciences than in the social sciences, and female scientists reported such negative experiences as factors in decisions to leave their departments or even their jobs. Female scientists who perceived that their work environment included a sexist climate, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment reported lower job satisfaction and poorer productivity than female scientists who experienced more sup- portive work environments.

Another barrier faced by female scientists often fails to appear in fi lms—the confl ict between work and family demands. Films avoid depicting this dilemma by portray- ing female scientists as single or childless (Steinke, 2005). Research on the success of female scientists (Bentley & Wise, 2004) revealed that this depiction may not be accurate; female scientists often marry and have children. However, family commit- ments hampered scientifi c success for women compared to men.

Thus, research on women in science shows a growing number of women pursuing careers in science but also barriers that block their success. Those barriers are similar to the movie image of female scientists in terms of harassment and lack of acceptance by their male colleagues, but in addition, women in science face problems of balancing career and family in ways that the movies fail to show.

36 Researching Sex and Gender

The gender difference in mathematics performance is one such well-publicized difference (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Are boys really better at math than girls? If so, how much bet- ter? Do all boys do better than all girls? One way to answer these questions is to examine the amount of overlap in the distribution of math scores for boys and girls. Figure 2.2 shows some possibilities for the distributions of math scores for boys and girls. Group A of this fi gure shows two distributions with no overlap. If this fi gure represented the mathemat- ics performance of boys and girls, then all boys would do better than all girls. Group B shows the performance of boys and girls overlapping slightly. If this fi gure represented the performance of boys and girls, then most boys would do better than most girls. A few girls would do better than a few boys, but no girls would do better than boys with the highest performance. Group C shows a lot of overlap between the performance of the two groups. If this fi gure represented performance, many girls would do better at math than many boys.

Hyde (1981, 1994, 2005) contended that the upper range of difference in mathematical performance between men and women is no more than 1%. With this level of difference, only a small percentage of the distribution of math scores for boys and girls fails to overlap, and most of the scores for the two are in the same range. Figure 2.2 C comes closer to this distribution of math ability than the other parts of Figure 2.2 . These gender-related differences in math per- formance are suffi ciently large to show a statistically signifi cant difference but not large enough to have any practical signifi cance when applied to the performance of most boys and most girls. This magnitude of difference would not lead educators to create different math classes for boys and girls because their abilities were so dissimilar, nor would counselors advise girls to avoid math courses because of their lack of ability. With this level of overlap, Lawrence Summers (or anyone else) should not speculate about women’s lack of innate ability.

Studies that do not fi nd hypothesized differences in outcomes are less likely to be pub- lished than studies that offer support for the hypotheses. Thus, a strong prejudice exists in

Figure 2.2 Distributions with Varying Degrees of Overlap

Researching Sex and Gender 37

Table 2.3 Stages of Research and Potential for Bias

Stage Ways Bias Can Enter Gender-Related Example

Finding a problem to investigate

Allowing personal and societal values to infl uence choice of topic

Studying heart disease rather than breast cancer in middle-aged populations

Selecting variables Using inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading defi nitions

Defi ning rape as vaginal penetration accompanied by force or threat of force (excludes other forced sexual acts and excludes men as victims)

Choosing a design Choosing a design that does not allow for the evaluation of context

Testing participants in a situation that is anxiety provoking for women but not for men

Formulating a hypothesis

Failing to consider the validity of the null hypothesis

Always hypothesizing gender differences rather than similarities

Following a theory that is biased Following Freudian theory to hypothesize that women have weak superegos

Collecting data Permitting personal bias to infl uence measurement; using a defi nition of the behavior that is too narrow

Defi ning battering as the number of police reports of domestic violence

Analyzing results Allowing personal values and expectation to guide the choice of which factors to evaluate

Failing to make a comparison of female and male participants

Interpreting results Failing to report effect sizes Interpreting a gender difference in a way that makes it seem large when it is not

Interpreting gender differences as due to biological factors when no biological data exist

Claiming that boys’ advantage in math is biological when no biological data have been collected

Publication bias Publication of fi ndings showing signifi cant gender differences

Publication and media attention for fi ndings of gender differences, but no attention for fi ndings of similarities

favor of fi ndings that show differences rather than fi ndings that do not succeed in showing differences; that is, there is a prejudice against fi ndings that suggest similarities (Greenwald, 1975; Hyde, 2005). This tendency prompts researchers to highlight the differences they fi nd and to dismiss other nonsignifi cant results. Indeed, researchers may omit any mention of failure to fi nd a difference, such as a gender-related difference, but researchers who fi nd statistically signifi cant differences will always mention the differences and the level of statisti- cal signifi cance. Researchers cannot discuss an effect they have failed to fi nd, and they must discuss effects that they have found. However, the omission of some information and the mention of other information can lead to a distorted view of overall fi ndings by magnifying differences and obscuring similarities.

Table 2.3 shows the stages of research and how bias can enter at various points in the pro- cess. The possibilities for gender bias listed in the table are only a few examples; the history of gender research is fi lled with many other examples.

Ways to Deal with Bias in Science Those who criticize the bias in science have proposed two very different strategies for dealing with this problem. The constructionists deny the possibility of objectivity and thus reject the basic tenets of science. The extreme of this position calls for abandoning science as a way to deal with its inevitable bias. That position is unlikely to prevail: Science has been too

38 Researching Sex and Gender

successful and is too widely accepted. Nevertheless, some scholars advocate radical transfor- mation in collecting and analyzing information. Other researchers argue that scientists must try harder to do good science.

Advocating Transformation

Several scholars have argued that feminist research has the power to transform research with women and even the discipline of psychology. Historian Londa Schiebinger (1999, 2003) asked a broader question about the infl uence of feminism on all of science. She evaluated the possibility that feminism and its criticisms of traditional science have changed modern science. Her conclusions were both positive and negative. On the one hand, Schiebinger contended that feminism (and the presence of women) has brought about some changes in science. On the other hand, nothing has changed in science’s basic assumptions or approach.

The criticisms concerning masculinist bias in science may be founded, and the women who enter the profession of scientifi c research must play by the rules of science. In that sense, feminism has not changed science. Women have changed science in terms of what questions researchers ask and possibly how those results are interpreted. Research on issues important to women—such as incest and sexual abuse of children, rape and sexual assault, sexual harass- ment, spouse abuse, and achievements by women—has increased dramatically within the past 30 years, parallel to the increase in women in psychology (Worell, 1996). In addition, extend- ing research to understudied populations has been a force in expanding psychology research beyond White, middle-class college students (Worell & Etaugh, 1994). Women in psychology have managed to change psychology research more than to transform science itself.

To decrease sexism in science, Londa Schiebinger and Martina Schraudner (2011) proposed that both women and science should change. They contend that changes in science must occur through encouraging more women to become scientists, eliminating the sexism in the institutions in which scientifi c research takes place, and integrating sex and gender into every facet of the scientifi c enterprise. Schiebinger and Schraudner argued that these gender innova- tions in science would benefi t not only women but also science and society in general through applications of science to the entire population rather than focusing on men or women.

Scholars who claim that research should center on women advocate a more radical trans- formation. This view is feminist standpoint epistemologies (Campbell & Wasco, 2000; Harding, 2004, 2006; Harding & Norberg, 2005), and scholars who take this view claim that women have a unique point of view and different cognitive processes that have been ignored. These researchers believe that the analytical categories that are appropriate for men may not be appro- priate for women and that research should remedy these shortcomings by devising methods to study the unique experience of womanhood. Rather than push women’s issues to the margins, feminist standpoint scholars make those issues the center (Anderson, 2002; Harding, 2006).

As a way of gaining additional information about women and their experience, the feminist standpoint epistemologies have considerable value and appeal. Some feminist scholars have rejected traditional quantitative research as impoverished in capturing the female experience and have opted for more qualitative approaches. Such methods allow researchers to be sub- jective and interpretive, which qualitative researchers believe is critical in studying behavior.

The feminist standpoint epistemologies have the disadvantage of perpetuating the emphasis on gender differences that they criticize (Cosgrove, 2003) and carry the risk of emotionally harming participants (Sampson, Bloor, & Fincham, 2008). The growing interest in qualitative research and its increasing frequency in psychology journals speak to the greater support of these changes in research, but in departing radically from accepted methodology, these studies are diffi cult for mainstream science to accept (Riger, 1992; Wertz, 2011). Less radical changes, however, are easier to accept and enact. Thus, decreasing bias in gender research is a more feasible goal.

Researching Sex and Gender 39

Decreasing Bias

Those scholars who advocate a more objective study of gender can be termed feminist empiri- cists (Campbell & Wasco, 2000; Riger, 1992). These feminist researchers have argued that the development of a feminist methodology may not benefi t research on women and gender- related behaviors. “A distinctive set of feminist methods for psychological research are not only futile but dangerous,” and “any method can be misused in sexist ways” (Peplau & Conrad, 1989, p. 380). This view rejects the notion that methodology is gendered or that feminist research must be conducted by women or exclusively on women. Instead, some feminist psychologists (McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004) argue that the use of diverse and appro- priate methods is best for the study of women and gender-related behaviors.

To adequately study gender contrasts, research must include men (or boys) as well as women (or girls). Such comparisons are the subject matter of gender similarities and differ- ences, and this research cannot include only one sex or the other. However, the necessary research must differ from much prior research, because so much of the existing research concerning gender is fi lled with serious bias.

Several groups of feminist empiricist researchers have alerted researchers to the potential for inadvertently introducing sexist bias into research and have presented some sugges- tions for conducting nonsexist psychological research. Maureen McHugh and her colleagues (McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986) acknowledged that psychology research has included biases, some of them unintentional. An unwarranted confi dence in traditional research methods is one source of bias. In addition, bias can come from the theories and explana- tions researchers use as well as from inappropriate labeling and defi nitions.

Unwarranted confi dence in traditional research methods occurs, for example, when psy- chologists accept that observations of behavior are objective (McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004). Observations are not necessarily free of sexist (or other) biases, because the observer may be biased and the context of the observation is rarely included in the analysis of the situation. The process of measurement itself fails to capture critical aspects of experience.

Gender may be part of the context of research and yet go unmentioned in a study. For example, the gender of the participants may be a subject variable in a study, but the gender of the experimenter usually is not. The gender of the experimenter may affect the behavior of participants, yet researchers rarely consider this factor.

Bias in an explanatory system occurs when researchers use broad terms (such as hormones or modeling ) to explain specifi c behaviors. Appropriate explanations should take many fac- tors into account, including social, cultural, biological, and situational factors. Inappropriate labeling and defi nitions occur in gender research when differences exist and one variation is labeled in a derogatory way. For example, the controversy over Lawrence Summers’s remarks concerning women in science provoked research asking “Why aren’t more women in sci- ence?” (Ceci & Williams, 2007). Londa Schiebinger (2008) highlighted the subtle sexism in that question by asking why there aren’t research initiatives to determine why so few men are involved with child care and domestic labor. The focus of the research on women’s partici- pation in science is defi cit: Women must have something wrong with them, or they would be engineers and scientists in numbers similar to men. Researchers should avoid placing value-laden labels on behaviors before they have evidence of the value, consider the context of the behavior, include both women and men in research on gender-related behaviors, or give appropriate emphasis to topics of interest to both men and women (McHugh et al., 1986; Schiebinger & Schraudner, 2011). It may not be possible to eliminate gender bias in research, but such bias can be decreased. Critical thinking can lead to an appropriate skepti- cism and a reformulation for gender research that includes a step-by-step consideration of how bias can enter the study of gender at any point (Caplan & Caplan, 2016).

40 Researching Sex and Gender

Specifi c analysis techniques can reduce the bias in evaluating research, depending on the technique chosen. The development and use of a statistical technique called meta-analysis allow researchers to evaluate results from many studies and thereby determine the overall size of various effects. This information is related to the concept of practical signifi cance because it can reveal which results are small and which are large. Janet Hyde (2007) explained that “Meta-analysis is a statistical method that allows the researcher to synthesize the statistical fi ndings from numerous studies of the same question” (p. 259). She contended that meta- analysis is preferred over evaluations that count the outcomes or combine probabilities from various studies because meta-analysis allows similar studies to be combined and statistically evaluated. Researchers have performed over 370 meta-analyses related to gender (Eagly & Wood, 2013), which have contributed to the fi nding that gender-related differences are small or nonexistent in many cases and large enough to be practically signifi cant for only a few variables. That is, meta-analyses have revealed more gender similarities than gender differences (Eagly & Wood, 2013).

Analysis and reporting results also require changes (Hyde, 1994). Researchers should conduct all appropriate signifi cance tests and report all (even nonsignifi cant) fi ndings and sizes of effects, exercising caution in interpreting results so as to make appropriate conclusions, and applying appropriate scientifi c standards to ensure that fi ndings are not misused. All of these suggestions are intended to make the research on sex and gender more scientifi cally rigorous and thus elimi- nate the biases that have been so common in this area, creating a feminist empiricism.

Summary

The present and past of gender research offers examples of bias, and one such example came from Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who set women seething when he suggested that women may be inherently less suited to science than men. This episode is only one example of the controversies surrounding women in science.

Science as a method of gathering information can be traced back to the 16th century and rests on philosophical traditions that assert the advantages of an objective, observation- based understanding of the world. By using descriptive methods such as correlational studies and surveys, researchers gather and evaluate information that leads them to understand the world. By using the experimental method, researchers can develop an understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. Although the ex post facto method resembles experimentation, it differs in procedure and in the type of information it yields; ex post facto studies do not involve the manipulation of independent variables and do not allow the determination of causality.

All studies with gender as a subject variable are ex post facto designs, and none has the ability to reveal the cause of any differences they might show. Gender can be an independent variable in experimental studies when, for example, the researcher manipulates the descrip- tion of targets, identifying some as male and some as female. This type of approach treats gender as a social category and, like all laboratory research, suffers from artifi ciality.

Dissatisfaction with traditional quantitative research has led to a growing interest in quali- tative research methods among psychologists. These methods include case studies, inter- views, ethnography, and focus groups. Researchers using these approaches acknowledge that they are part of the research process, try to treat their participants as equals, and attempt to preserve the complexity of the situations they study.

Bias can enter the research process at any point, and the history of gender studies is fi lled with examples of bias. Some have argued that science has a masculinist bias, and theories such as Freud’s psychodynamic theory have a clear bias against women. Any of the steps in conducting research can be contaminated by personal bias. In addition, studies that reveal

Researching Sex and Gender 41

gender-related differences may show a difference that is statistically signifi cant—that is, not due to chance. Yet the difference may not have any practical signifi cance; for instance, it may not reveal large, important differences between women and men.

Solutions to the bias in science include an abandonment of science, which is unlikely, or drastic revisions to research methodology. Some feminist scholars advocate abandoning the traditional scientifi c method and adopting alternatives that center on women and that use different methods of gaining information, especially qualitative research methods such as ethnography and interview studies. The term feminist standpoint epistemologies applies to those who want to create a woman-centered approach to researching the female experience. Less drastic revisions include recommendations for making researchers more careful. Those researchers who advise taking care to avoid sexist bias in research can be described as feminist empiricists . In psychological research, those who are feminist empiricists are more numerous than feminist standpoint epistemologists. Some psychologists have examined the challenges and proposed solutions for carrying out nonsexist research. Some feminist scholars argue against excluding any method and propose a more varied and objective feminist empiricism.

Glossary

case study a qualitative method that focuses on gathering extensive information about a single person or a small group.

constructionists a group of critics of science who argue that reality is constructed through perception and is inevitably subject to bias. Included in this bias is all scientifi c observa- tion, thus excluding science from its claim of objectivity.

correlational study a descriptive research method that requires researchers to measure two factors known to occur within a group of people to determine the degree of relationship between the two factors.

data representations, usually in numerical form, of some facet of the phenomenon that the researcher observes.

dependent variable (DV) the factor in an experiment that the experimenter measures to determine whether the manipulation of the independent variable has an effect.

descriptive research methods a group of research methods, including naturalistic observation, surveys, and correlational studies, that yield descriptions of the observed phenomena.

empirical observation collecting information through direct observation. ethnography a type of qualitative research in which the researcher becomes immersed in a

situation in order to make observations and interpretations of that situation. experiment a type of study in which a researcher manipulates an independent variable and

observes the changes in a dependent variable; only through experiments can researchers learn about cause-and-effect relationships.

ex post facto study a type of nonexperimental research design that involves the comparison of subjects, who are placed in contrast groups, on the basis of some preexisting charac- teristic of the subjects.

focus group a qualitative research method consisting of a discussion involving a group of people centered around a specifi c topic.

hypothesis a statement about the expected outcome of a study. independent variable (IV) the factor in an experiment that the experimenter manipulates

to create a difference that did not previously exist in the participants. interview a type of qualitative study in which respondents are interviewed in order to deter-

mine patterns or commonalities among their responses. meta-analysis a statistical analysis that allows the evaluation of many studies simultaneously. objectivity the notion that observation is free of bias by the observer.

42 Researching Sex and Gender

operational defi nition a defi nition of a variable in terms of operations used to obtain information on that variable, rather than in terms of concepts underlying that variable.

practical signifi cance an important result with practical implications; different from statisti- cal signifi cance.

qualitative research research that focuses on understanding complexity and context rather than distilling situations to sets of numbers.

quantifi cation the process of turning observations into numerical data. quantitative research research that uses numerical data and statistical analysis. statistically signifi cant result a result obtained by analysis with statistical tests and found

unlikely to have been obtained on the basis of chance alone. subject variable a characteristic of the subjects, such as gender, that allows researchers to

form contrast groups in quasi-experimental studies. survey a descriptive research method involving the measurement of attitudes through the

administration and interpretation of questionnaires. variable a factor of interest to researchers; something that can have more than one value, as

opposed to a constant, which has only one constant value.

Suggested Readings

Mahoney, Michael J. (2003). Minding science: Constructivism and the discourse of inquiry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27 , 105–123. Mahoney’s very personal account of science includes a review of the history of science, the ideal procedures of

scientifi c investigation, and the many ways in which that ideal is not realized in the work and politics of science.

Marecek, Jeanne. (2003). Dancing through minefi elds: Toward a qualitative stance in psychology. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 49–69). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Marecek reviews the status of qualitative work in psychology, pointing out that such studies have a long history

in psychology and much to offer to investigators.

Schiebinger, Londa; & Schraudner, Martina. (2011). Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innova- tions in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36 (2), 154–167. Schiebinger and Schraudner propose changes to science that include not only recruiting more women into

science but also institutional changes to make women more accepted and successful in scientifi c careers. They also advocate widespread changes in the practice of science to include gender in every aspect.

Suggested Websites

If you are interested in the history of women in science, check out 4000 Years of Women in Science (http://www. astr.ua.edu/4000WS/). This website contains biographies, references, and photos, as well as links to other sites.

GirlGeeks (http://www.girlgeeks.org/) is an online community devoted to girls and women who are interested in science and technology. It includes career information and tips, a forum to share information and support, and information about girls and women who are contributing to the technology fi eld.

Girlstart (www.girlstart.org) is an organization devoted to promoting girls’ interest in and access to science experiences. It includes information about nationwide programs for girls and access to educational information and community programs.

References

Anderson, Elizabeth. (2002, Fall). Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Retrieved August, 2015, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ fall2002/entries/feminism-epistemology

Barres, Ben. (2006). Does gender matter? Nature, 442 (7099), 133–136.

Researching Sex and Gender 43

Bentley, Jerome T.; & Wise, Donald E. (2004). Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers . Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics.

Bernstein, Dan. (1999). Introduction. In Dan Bernstein (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1999: Gender and motivation (pp. vii–xxiii). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Boyle, Danny. (2015, Dec. 18). Sir Tim Hunt ‘to leave Britain for Japan’ after sexist row. The Telegraph. Retrieved February 8, 2016 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12057365/Sir-Tim- Hunt-to-leave-Britain-for-Japan-after-sexism-row.html

Campbell, Rebecca; & Wasco, Sharon M. (2000). Feminist approaches to social science: Epistemological and methodological tenets. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28 , 773–791.

Capaldi, E. J.; & Proctor, Robert W. (2005). Is the worldview of qualitative inquiry a proper guide for psycho- logical research? American Journal of Psychology, 118 , 251–269.

Caplan, Paula J.; & Caplan, Jeremy B. (2016). Thinking critically about research on sex and gender (3rd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Ceci, Stephen J.; & Williams, Wendy M. (Eds.). (2007). Why aren’t more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Christensen, Larry B.; Johnson, R. Burke; & Turner, Lisa A. (2014). Research methods, design, and analysis (12th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Cisneros-Puebla, César A.; & Faux, Robert B. (2008). The deconstructive and reconstructive faces of social construction. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9 (1), 1–14.

Cosgrove, Lisa. (2003). Feminism, postmodernism, and psychological research. Hypatia, 18 , 85–113. Cosgrove, Lisa; & McHugh, Maureen C. (2008). A post-Newtonian, postmodern approach to science: New

methods in social action research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 73–85). New York: Guilford Press.

Dear, Peter. (2005). What is the history of science the history of? ISIS: Journal of the History of Science in Society, 96 , 390–406.

Eagly, Alice H.; & Wood, Wendy. (2013). The nature-nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (3), 340–357.

Flicker, Eva. (2003). Between brains and breasts? Women scientists in fi ction fi lm. Public Understanding of Science, 12 , 307–318.

Gould, Stephen Jay. (2000). Deconstructing the “science wars” by reconstructing an old mold. Science, 287 , 253–259.

Greenwald, Anthony G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82 , 1–20.

Harding, Sandra. (2001). Comment on Walby’s “Against epistemological chasms: The science question in femi- nism revisited”: Can democratic values and interests ever play a rationally justifi able role in the evaluation of scientifi c work? Signs, 26 , 511–525.

Harding, Sandra. (2004). A socially relevant philosophy of science? Resources from standpoint theory’s contro- versiality. Hypatia, 19 , 25–47.

Harding, Sandra. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues . Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Harding, Sandra; & Norberg, Kathryn. (2005). New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: An introduction. Signs, 30 (4), 2009–2015.

Hare-Mustin, Rachel T.; & Marecek, Jeanne. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodern- ism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43 , 455–464.

Hyde, Janet Shibley. (1981). How large are cognitive gender differences? A meta-analysis using w 2 and d . Ameri- can Psychologist, 36 , 892–901.

Hyde, Janet Shibley. (1994). Can meta-analysis make feminist transformations in psychology? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18 , 451–462.

Hyde, Janet Shibley. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60 , 581–592. Hyde, Janet Shibley. (2007). New directions in the study of gender similarities and differences. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 16 (5), 259–263. Jackson, J. Kasi. (2008). Gender, mad scientists and nanotechnology. Spontaneous Generations, 2 (1), 45–55. Jones, Robert A. (2005). How many female scientists do you know? Endeavour, 29 (2), 84–88. Keller, Evelyn Fox. (1985). Refl ections on gender and science . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

44 Researching Sex and Gender

Keller, Johannes. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702.

Kleiber, Pamela B. (2004). Focus groups: More than a method of qualitative inquiry. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 87–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory. (2004). Sustaining gains: Refl ections on women and science and technology in 20th- century United States. NWSA Journal, 16 (1), 1–26.

Komath, Sneha Sudhaa. (2008). Frames of science? Current Science, 94 (11), 1363–1364. Losh, Susan Carol. (2008, July). Adult stereotypes about scientists 1983 and 2001: Gender, time and media

effects. Paper presented at American Sociological Association annual meeting, Sheraton Boston and the Bos- ton Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA.

Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons; & Jacklin, Carol Nagy. (1974). The psychology of sex differences . Stanford, CA: Stan- ford University Press.

Mahoney, Michael J. (2003). Minding science: Constructivism and the discourse of inquiry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27 , 105–123.

Marchel, Carol; & Owens, Stephanie. (2007). Qualitative research in psychology: Could William James get a job? History of Psychology, 10 (40), 301–324.

McHugh, Maureen C.; & Cosgrove, Lisa. (2004). Feminist research methods: Studying women and gender. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. 151–181). Westport, CT: Praeger/ Greenwood.

McHugh, Maureen C.; Koeske, Randi D.; & Frieze, Irene H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research: A guide for researchers. American Psychologist, 41 , 879–890.

Morton, Thomas A.; Haslam, S. Alexander; Postmes, Tom; & Ryan, Michelle K. (2006). We value what values us: The appeal of identity-affi rming science. Political Psychology, 27 (6), 823–838.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony; & Leech, Nancy L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Meth- odology, 8 (5), 375–387.

Peplau, Letitia Anne; & Conrad, Eva. (1989). Beyond nonsexist research: The perils of feminist methods in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13 , 379–400.

Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. (2005, January 14). Retrieved August 31, 2015, from http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php

Ribalow, M. Z. (1998). Script doctors. The Sciences, 38 (6), 26–31. Riger, Stephanie. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices: Science, social values, and the study of

women. American Psychologist, 47 , 730–740. Rolin, Kristina. (2004). Why gender is a relevant factor in the social epistemology of scientifi c inquiry. Philosophy

of Science, 71 , 880–891. Rosser, Sue V. (2012, October 29). More gender diversity will mean better science. The Chronicle of Higher Educa-

tion . Retrieved September 1, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/article/Massive-Excitement-About/135310/ Sampson, Helen; Bloor, Michael; & Fincham, Ben. (2008). A price worth paying? Considering the “cost” of

refl exive research methods and the infl uence of feminist ways of “doing.” Sociology, 42 (5), 919–933. Schiebinger, Londa. (1999). Has feminism changed science ? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schiebinger, Londa. (2003). Introduction: Feminism inside the sciences. Signs, 28 , 859–867. Schiebinger, Londa. (2007). Getting more women into science: Knowledge issues. Harvard Journal of Law &

Gender, 30 (2), 365–378. Schiebinger, Londa. (2008). Changing assumptions. American Scientist, 96 (5), 428–430. Schiebinger, Londa; & Schraudner, Martina. (2011). Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innova-

tions in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36 (2), 154–167. Settles, Isis H.; Cortina, Lilia M.; Malley, Janet; & Stewart, Abigail J. (2006). The climate for women in aca-

demic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30 , 47–58. Steinke, Jocelyn. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and

engineers in popular fi lms. Science Communication, 27 , 27–63. Steinke, Jocelyn; & Long, M. (1996). A lab of her own? Portrayals of female characters on children’s educational

science programs. Science Communication, 18 , 91–115. Tashakkori, Abbas; & Teddlie, Charles. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social

and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6 (1), 61–77.

Researching Sex and Gender 45

Tennenbaum, Harriet R.; & Leaper, Campbell. (2002). Are parents’ gender schemas related to their children’s gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 38 , 615–630.

Thomason, Andy. (2015, June 11). Female scientists mock Nobel laureate’s remarks with #DistractinglySexy campaign. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/female- scientists-mock-nobel-laureates-remarks-with-distractinglysexy-campaign/100553?cid=at&utm_source= at&utm_medium=en

van Anders, Sari M. (2004). Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 51 , 511–521.

Weil, Shalva. (2008). Is there a “legimitation crisis” in qualitative methods? Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9 (2), 1–13.

Wertz, Frederick J. (2011). The qualitative revolution and psychology: Science, politics, and ethics. Humanistic Psychology, 39 (2), 77–104.

Wilkinson, Sue. (1999). Focus groups: A feminist method. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23 , 221–244. Worell, Judith. (1996). Opening doors to feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20 , 469–485. Worell, Judith; & Etaugh, Claire. (1994). Transforming theory and research with women: Themes and varia-

tions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18 , 443–450. Zavos, Alexandra; & Biglia, Barbara. (2009). Embodying feminist research: Learning from action research, political

practices, diffractions, and collective knowledge. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 6 (1/2), 153–172. Zosuls, Kristina; Miller, Cindy; Ruble, Diane; Martin, Carol; & Fabes, Richard. (2011). Gender development

research in Sex Roles : Historical trends and future directions. Sex Roles, 64 (11/12), 826–842.

H eadline : “ Gender Stereotypes Don’t Die Easily,” Vancouver Sun , June 27, 2013

During the 1970s, women began to complain about negative portrayals of women in the media (Todd, 2013). Drawing on stereotypes of women, these images portrayed women as hysterical, gossipy, poor at math, and lacking in humor. The feminist movement that was gathering power during that time fought against these stereotypical portrayals. Although this type of stereotyping has not disappeared, it is no longer as blatant as it was. Columnist Douglas Todd (2013) complained that men now seem to be in a similar position; negative stereotypes of men fi ll the media, but no fl ood of complaint has arisen from men (or women) about these negative images.

Todd focused on a report about men’s lack of maturity. Indeed, the report claimed that men did not reach maturity until age 43, whereas women mature at age 32. The study was commissioned by a British television network as part of the publicity for a new television show about an immature man, but stories appeared throughout Great Britain, Canada, and the United States, reporting the fi ndings without questioning the validity of the research. As Todd pointed out, both women and men seemed eager to accept confi rmation of these negative stereotypes about men. Perpetuating negative stereotypes of men is no more accept- able than for women.

In this chapter, we examine stereotyping, including the historical origins of today’s gender stereotypes. We also look at how gender stereotyping functions for today’s women and men and infl uences how people think about and treat women and men. Indeed, the phenom- enon of stereotyping is so important and pervasive that it can serve as a framework for our examination of psychological perspectives on gender in future chapters.

History of Stereotypes of Women and Men

A gender stereotype consists of beliefs about the psychological traits and characteristics of, as well as the activities appropriate to, men or women. These beliefs often have something to do with the behaviors typically performed by women and men in a particular culture, but gender stereotypes are more generalized beliefs and attitudes about masculinity and feminin- ity. Such attitudes do not have a perfect relationship with observed behaviors: When people associate a pattern of behavior with either women or men, they may overlook individual variations and exceptions and come to believe that the behavior is inevitably associated with one gender but not the other. Therefore, gender stereotypes go beyond behaviors, forming categories that may not correspond to real women and men in many ways.

Gender stereotypes are very infl uential; they affect conceptualizations of women and men. They establish social categories that represent what people think. Even when beliefs vary

Gender Stereotypes Masculinity and Femininity

3

Gender Stereotypes 47

from reality, the beliefs can be very powerful forces in judgments of self and others. There- fore, the history, development, and function of stereotypes are important topics in under- standing the impact of gender on people’s lives.

The current gender stereotypes, especially those about women, refl ect beliefs that appeared during the 19th century, the Victorian era (Lewin, 1984c). Before the 19th century, most people lived and worked on farms, where men and women worked together. The Industrial Revolution changed the lives of a majority of people in Europe and North America by mov- ing men outside the home to earn money and leaving women at home to manage households and children. This separation forced men and women to adapt to different environments and roles. As men coped with the harsh business and industrial world, women were left in the relatively unvarying and sheltered environments of their homes. These changes produced two beliefs: the Doctrine of Two Spheres and the Cult of True Womanhood.

The Doctrine of Two Spheres is the belief that women’s and men’s interests diverge—women and men have their separate areas of infl uence (Lewin, 1984b). For women, the areas of infl u- ence are home and children, whereas men’s sphere includes work and the outside world. These two spheres have little overlap, which has allowed them to be seen as opposites. This notion of women and men as opposites has been infl uential in how people think about women and men and has also guided psychology’s attempts to measure masculinity and femininity.

The Cult of True Womanhood

The Cult of True Womanhood arose between 1820 and 1860. “The attributes of True Wom- anhood, by which a woman judged herself and was judged by her husband, her neighbors, and society could be divided into four cardinal virtues—piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity” (Welter, 1978, p. 313). The Cult of True Womanhood held that the combina- tion of these characteristics provided the promise of happiness and power to the Victorian woman, and that without these, no woman’s life could have real meaning.

Piety was a virtue that society viewed as more natural to women than men. Religious stud- ies were seen as compatible with femininity and deemed appropriate for women, but other types of education detracted from women’s femininity. In addition, other types of education might lead women to ignore religion, become overly romantic, and lose their virtue, or purity (that is, their virginity). The loss of sexual purity was a “fate worse than death.” Having lost her purity, a woman was without value or hope. Men, on the other hand, were not naturally as religious and thus not naturally as virtuous as women. According to this view of True Womanhood, men were, at best, prone to sin and seduction, and at worst, brutes. True Women would withstand the advances of men, dazzling and shaming them with their virtue.

Submissiveness was the third virtue in the Cult of True Womanhood. This characteristic was not true of, and not desirable in, men (Welter, 1978). Women were expected to be weak, dependent, and timid, whereas men were supposed to be strong, wise, and forceful. Dependent women wanted strong men, not sensitive ones. These couples formed families in which the husband was unquestionably superior and the wife would not consider ques- tioning his authority.

The last of the four virtues, domesticity, was connected to both submissiveness and to the Doctrine of the Two Spheres. True Women were wives whose concern was with domestic affairs—making a home and having children: These domestic duties included cooking and nursing the sick, especially a sick husband or child.

Table 3.1 summarizes the elements of the Cult of True Womanhood. However, the crite- ria were too demanding for any real woman to meet. Nonetheless, these virtues were held as attainable, and women tried to meet these ideals. Remnants linger in our present-day culture and infl uence current views of femininity.

48 Gender Stereotypes

Gendered Voices: Gendered Food

A college senior related how gender stereotypes intruded into eating at a restaurant with her boyfriend: “When my boyfriend and I go out to dinner, I usually order a steak, and he orders a big salad. More than half of the time, the food server puts the salad in front of me, and my boyfriend gets the steak. If the servers don’t write down the order, the stereotypes take over.”

. . . And Drinks

A graduate student related how gender stereotypes took over when she and her husband ordered drinks in a restaurant: “My husband’s favorite drink is a strawberry daiquiri. He often gets funny looks because I guess he doesn’t look like a daiquiri kind of guy. On one occasion, my husband ordered a strawberry daiquiri, and I asked our waitress that she add extra whipped cream and a cherry. We all laughed about it. I ordered a long-neck beer, which is my typical drink during the summer. When our drinks arrived, the waitress put the daiquiri—complete with whipped cream and cherry—in front of me and the beer in front of my husband. I thought it was interesting after the laugh we had over my husband’s order, but I guess that stereotyping won out.”

Table 3.1 Elements of Stereotyping of Women and Men

The Cult of True Womanhood Male Sex Role Identity

Piety: True Women were naturally religious. No Sissy Stuff: A stigma is attached to feminine characteristics.

Purity: True Women were sexually uninterested. The Big Wheel: Men need success and status.

Submissiveness: True Women were weak, dependent, and timid.

The Sturdy Oak: Men should have toughness, confi dence, and self-reliance.

Domesticity: True Women’s domain was in the home.

Give ’Em Hell: Men should have an aura of aggression, daring, and violence.

Sources: Based on “The Male Sex Role: Our Culture’s Blueprint of Manhood and What It’s Done for Us Lately” (p. 12), by Robert Brannon, in Deborah S. David and Robert Brannon (Eds.), The Forty-Nine Percent Majority, 1976, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; and “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820–1860,” by Barbara Welter, in Michael Gordon (Ed.), The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective (2nd ed.), New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Masculinities

The 19th-century idealization of women also had implications for men, who were seen as the opposite of women in a number of ways. Women were passive, dependent, pure, refi ned, and delicate; men were active, independent, coarse, and strong. The Victorian ideal of manhood was the basis for what Joseph Pleck (1981, 1995) referred to as the Male Sex Role Identity (now called the Male Gender Role Identity). Pleck discussed the Male Gen- der Role Identity as the dominant conceptualization of masculinity in our society and as a source of problems, both for society and for individual men.

R. W. Connell (1995) explored the historical origins of attitudes toward masculinity, look- ing back into 16th-century Europe and the changing social and religious climate to trace

Gender Stereotypes 49

the development of individualism. He contended that industrialization, world exploration, and civil wars became activities associated with men and formed the basis for modern mas- culinity. Pleck (1984) also reviewed the social climate, focusing on the late 19th century, and citing examples of the increasing concern that men were not as manly as they once had been. Being a good provider became an increasingly diffi cult role for men to fulfi ll (Bernard, 1981; Faludi, 1999); failure at this role endangered their masculinity. Education became increasingly important for employment, but early childhood education became the province of women, and Pleck discussed how these female elementary school teachers tried to make boys into well-behaved pupils—in other words, “sissies.” This issue remains part of a debate over boys in the classroom (Kimmel, 2000; Rosin, 2010; Sommers, 2000).

The prohibition against being a sissy and the rejection of the feminine are strong compo- nents of modern masculinity. According to Robert Brannon (1976), No Sissy Stuff is one of the four themes of the Male Sex Role. Another theme, The Big Wheel, describes men’s quest for success and status as well as their need to be looked up to. The Sturdy Oak component describes men’s air of toughness, confi dence, and self-reliance, especially in a crisis. Finally, the Give ’Em Hell aspect of the Male Sex Role refl ects the acceptability of violence, aggres- sion, and daring in men’s behavior. Table 3.1 summarizes these elements.

The more closely a man conforms to these characteristics, the closer he is to being a “real man.” This idealization of masculinity is equally as unrealistic as the “true woman” of the Cult of True Womanhood. However, even men who are fairly successful in adopting the Male Gender Role Identity may be poorly adjusted, unhappy people; this role prohibits close personal relationships, even with wives or children, and requires persistent competition and striving for achievement. These diffi culties lead men to make signifi cant departures from the role’s requirements.

Pleck (1981, 1995) proposed a new model, which he called Sex Role Strain (now Gen- der Role Strain), which departs in many ways from the Male Gender Role Identity. Pleck argued that during the 1960s and 1970s, both men and women started to make signifi - cant departures from their traditional roles. Nevertheless, the Male Gender Role Identity retained a powerful infl uence over what both men and women believe men should be. Many men deviate from the role, and some even believe that the role is harmful to society and to them personally, which makes adherence to the role a strain. Even men who succeed feel the strain in doing so, and the toxic components of the role present problems even for the successful. A review of research on male gender role ideology (Levant & Richmond, 2007) confi rmed that strain occurs and problems are associated with strong adherence to traditional masculinity.

Connell (1987, 1995, 2005) argued that gender has been constructed as part of each society throughout history, a view that is consistent with the belief that gender is some- thing that people do rather than part of what people are (West & Zimmerman, 1987). This construction of masculinity includes both sanctioned and less accepted behaviors. Thus, masculinity varies with both time and place, creating a multitude of masculinities. For each society, Connell contended that one version of masculinity is sanctioned as the one to which men should adhere, which he termed hegemonic masculinity . This version of masculinity attempts to subordinate femininity as well as less accepted versions of mas- culinity, such as male homosexuality. Like Pleck, Connell recognized many disadvantages to this narrow, dominant form of masculinity and saw many problems for society and for individual men who adhere to it.

Despite the notion that masculinity has undergone drastic changes in the past two decades, evidence indicates little change in hegemonic masculinity and strong representation of the four themes of the Male Gender Role (Bereska, 2003). Boys and men are still supposed to be stoic, aggressive, dependable, and not feminine.

50 Gender Stereotypes

Conceptualizing and Measuring Masculinity and Femininity

The history of gender stereotypes suggests that differences should be easy to understand. Indeed, the concepts of male and female are relatively easy for people to understand because these words relate to biological differences. The concepts of masculine and feminine are much less closely related to biology and thus much more diffi cult to separate into two nonoverlapping categories: “One can be more or less feminine. One cannot be more or less female” (Maccoby, 1988, p. 762). Nonetheless, these dimensions seem important—perhaps critically important—and psychologists have attempted to conceptualize and measure mas- culinity and femininity along with other important personality traits. Unfortunately, psy- chologists’ efforts to measure masculinity and femininity have a long history but not a long record of success (Constantinople, 1973; Hoffman, 2001; Lewin, 1984a, 1984b). The problems began with the fi rst measures developed, and no measurement technique used since has escaped serious criticism.

Explicit Measures of Stereotyping

Lewis Terman (who adapted the Binet intelligence test into the Stanford-Binet test) and Catherine Cox Miles constructed the Attitude Interest Analysis Survey, a 456-item test that appeared in 1936 (Lewin, 1984a). This test yielded masculinity–femininity (MF) scores that lay along a continuum with strong masculinity lying at one extreme and strong femininity at the other. The test was not valid in any way other than distinguishing men from women (Lewin, 1984a). This test is no longer used, but its existence infl uenced others to develop measurements of masculinity and femininity.

When the MF scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) appeared in 1940, it soon became the most common measure of masculinity and femininity, largely because of its inclusion in this personality test developed to measure psychological disor- ders (Lewin, 1984b). This scale was also unidimensional and bipolar, with masculinity and femininity at opposite ends of the scale. The psychologists who developed the MMPI were not really interested in measuring masculinity and femininity; they were more interested in measuring homosexual tendencies in men. As a result of this interest, their validation pro- cedure included a comparison of the MF responses of 13 homosexual men to the responses of 54 heterosexual male soldiers. They used the responses of the 13 homosexual men as a standard for femininity, thus defi ning femininity as the responses of these men.

The test makers knew that the scale should not be used as a valid measure of femininity (after all, they had used no women in their standardization), and they were initially tenta- tive in describing its use for a heterosexual population. But the test was soon extended to thousands of people, and the reservations disappeared. “It is rather staggering to realize that the femininity dimension of this popular test was ‘validated’ on a criterion group of 13 male homo- sexuals! ” (Lewin, 1984b, p. 181; emphasis in original). The scale was not even very successful in diagnosing sexual orientation in men, and this confusion of masculinity–femininity and sexual orientation posed a problem for understanding both concepts.

An alternative means of conceptualizing masculinity and femininity used the terms instru- mental and expressive , with men’s behaviors considered instrumental and women’s behaviors as expressive (Lewin, 1984b). This distinction was based on an analysis of families around the world, with the conclusion that men occupy the role of autonomous- and achievement- oriented leaders, whereas women provide nurturance and support. The terminology change made some difference in conceptualizing psychological masculinity and femininity, but even more important was the realization that femininity and masculinity may not be best concep- tualized as opposite ends of one continuum.

Gender Stereotypes 51

In 1974, Sandra Bem published a different approach to the measurement of masculinity and femininity by separating the dimensions of masculinity and femininity and by adding the concept of androgyny . She proposed that some people have characteristics associated with both masculinity and femininity; that is, some people are androgynous. The androgyny concept requires both masculinity and femininity in combination, making it incompatible with a unidimensional view of masculinity–femininity. Instead, Bem constructed two scales to capture her concept of androgyny. Her test, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), included one scale to measure masculinity and another to assess femininity. Figure 3.1 illustrates the difference between the traditional unidimensional approach to personality measurement and Bem’s two-dimensional approach.

People who take the BSRI respond to 60 characteristics by rating how well each of these characteristics applies to them on a 7-point scale ranging from Always or almost always true to Never or almost never true . Of the 60 items, 20 represent cultural stereotypes of masculinity (ambitious, independent, competitive), 20 represent femininity (gentle, warm, understand- ing), and 20 are fi ller items. Scores on the masculinity and femininity scales yield four differ- ent possibilities: masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated. People who score high on the masculinity scale and low on the femininity scale would be classifi ed masculine , whereas people who score high on the femininity scale and low on the masculinity scale would be considered feminine . These people not only accept cultural stereotypes of mascu- linity or femininity, but they also reject the other role. Bem labeled those people who score high on both scales androgynous and those who score low on both scales undifferentiated , classifi cations that do not appear in traditional tests of masculinity–femininity. Androgynous people evaluate themselves as having many of the characteristics that our culture associates with men and women, whereas those people who are undifferentiated endorse few traits of either gender.

The concept of androgyny experienced a rapid growth in popularity, prompting the devel- opment of another test, the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974). Designed to overcome problems with the BSRI (see Spence & Helmreich, 1978), the PAQ also identifi ed people as masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undiffer- entiated. Both tests have undergone revisions and continue to be in use.

Neither the PAQ nor the BSRI contains examples of the negative aspects of masculinity and femininity as part of their assessments. Some researchers have argued for the inclusion

Figure 3.1 Two Approaches to the Measurement of Femininity and Masculinity

52 Gender Stereotypes

of negative as well as positive dimensions for masculinity, femininity, and androgyny as an improvement to this strategy of assessment (Ricciardelli & Williams, 1995; Woodhill & Samuels, 2003). This approach combines examples of positive masculinity such as strong and confi dent with negative characteristics such as rude and aggressive and combines examples of positive femininity such as sensitive and patient with examples of negative femininity such as weak and timid (Ricciardelli & Williams, 1995). Positive and negative androgyny consist of combinations of the positive and negative traits from both. Research into the concept of negative and positive androgyny (Woodhill & Samuels, 2003) indicated that the separa- tion of positive and negative aspects of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny was a useful addition, including the fi nding that the mental health benefi ts of the positive characteristics associated with androgyny (Levant et al., 2006) and also the risks associated with the nega- tive characteristics (Woodhill & Samuels, 2003).

Although the terms masculinity and femininity are meaningful to most people, psycholo- gists have not yet managed to measure them in theoretically meaningful and valid ways. Problems exist both in the measurement of masculinity and femininity as well as in the con- cept of androgyny (Constantinople, 1973; Lewin, 1984b; Woodhill & Samuels, 2003). In answering the question “Are MF tests satisfactory? [The answer is] No. There is no evidence that the MF tests of the last sixty years provide a valid measure of the relative femininity of women or the relative masculinity of men” (Lewin, 1984a, p. 198). The MF tests pur- port to measure masculinity and femininity, but actually measure gender stereotypes rather than personality characteristics. The tests that include the concept of androgyny offer some improvement but do not solve the problem.

Implicit Measures of Stereotyping

In evaluating stereotyping, researchers often ask people to give their evaluations or opinions about individuals or groups, as in the BSRI and PAQ. This procedure yields explicit atti- tudes because people are explicitly, consciously aware of the opinions they furnish. However, people also have underlying components to their attitudes that they may not know about on a conscious level, called implicit attitudes . These implicit attitudes may differ from or be more extreme than a person’s explicit attitudes. Research indicates that gender stereotyping includes such implicit components.

Assessing implicit attitudes is more diffi cult than asking people about their explicit opin- ions. Those who study implicit attitudes ask participants to make judgments about the simi- larity or compatibility of word pairs and measure how long it takes people to react to these pairs, a process called the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Shorter reaction times mean closer associations. Thus stereotypical associations should be faster than counterstereotypical associations, a hypothesis confi rmed by research (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000; to take the Implicit Association Test, go to https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/). Over the past 25 years, it has become less acceptable to express gender and ethnic bias, but people still harbor those prejudices, and the Implicit Association Test reveals these biases (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013; Rudman, Greenwald, & McGhee, 2001). Studies of brain functioning (Knutson, Mah, Manly, & Grafman, 2007; Mitchell, Ames, Jenkins, & Banaji, 2009) have confi rmed that implicit gender and ethnic bias appears as activation of brain locations that differ from the activation that occurs with explicit bias. Such fi ndings validate the difference between explicit and implicit stereotyping.

Research on the Gender Implicit Association Test (van Well, Kolk, & Oei, 2007) indicates that this approach may be a better assessment of gender stereotyping than tests that tap explicit attitudes. Both types of measures reveal stereotyping, but the effect is larger for implicit measure- ments. Thus, implicit measures offer promising possibilities for the assessment of stereotyping.

Gender Stereotypes 53

The Process and Implications of Stereotyping

Psychologists have struggled with conceptualizing and measuring femininity and masculinity, and they have also grappled with understanding the process and implications of stereotyping. Despite the negative connotations of the term stereotyping , some theorists have minimized the negative aspects of the process. The simplifi cation that is inherent in stereotyping leads to streamlined cognitive processing, which may be an advantage (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). The limits on children’s cognitive abilities make gender stereotyping a normal part of children’s cognitive development (Martin & Halverson, 1981). Therefore, the function of gender stereotyping can be understood as a useful way to approach the complexities of social cognition, including thinking about gender. Stereotypes do not lead inevitably to bias (Per- rin, Heesacker, & Shrivastav, 2008), but a great deal of evidence indicates that stereotyping produces such large distortions and incorrect generalizations that its disadvantages outweigh the advantages (Bobo, 1999; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Hegarty & Pratto, 2004).

Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Gender stereotypes provide not only descriptions of how people think about women and men but also prescriptions about what women and men should be, which means that gender stereotyping places limits and evaluations on what traits and behaviors are allowed (Pren- tice & Carranza, 2002). The process of stereotyping results in the formation of cognitive categories, and people have the tendency to use one of those categories as the norm and the others as deviant from the norm (Hegarty & Pratto, 2004). For example, in forming cognitive categories for men and women, men are cast as the norm; in categorizing sexual orientation, heterosexuality is the norm. This process leaves women and gays and lesbians as deviant from the norm categories. Thus, perceived differences will be attributed to the “deviants” rather than the norm categories, which tends to create negative evaluations for women, gays, and lesbians. Such negative evaluations should create problems, and prejudice and discrimination are among the effects that fl ow from stereotyping.

Prejudice is a negative evaluation of an entire group, which allows prejudiced people to react to members of the group without any personal contact or without knowing anything about people in the group as individuals. Discrimination is behavior that holds people or groups apart from others and results in different treatments for those people. Thus, prejudice is an attitude, but discrimination is behavior. Figure 3.2 shows the relationship among these

Figure 3.2 Relationships among Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Stereotyping [cognitive process]

Prejudice [attitude]

Discrimination [behavior]

54 Gender Stereotypes

three factors. People may be prejudiced yet not actively discriminate, but the two often go together. Perceptions of women and men are important in these processes.

Perceptions of Women and Men Perception is the basis for the cognitive processing that can become a stereotype. The per- ception that men spend time playing video games and even become competitive with their own children is one of the reasons that men might be perceived as immature, as Douglas Todd’s headline story (2013) suggested. But how do these perceptions become stereotypes?

The content of gender stereotypes may be analyzed into four separate components that people use to differentiate male from female—traits, behaviors, physical characteristics, and occupations (Deaux & Lewis, 1984). All these components are relatively independent, but people associate one set of features from each of these with women and another set with men. On the basis of knowledge of one dimension, people extend judgments to the other three. Figure 3.3 shows the components of this model; the arrows indicate the associations people make among components. For example, given a gender label for a target person, people will make inferences concerning the person’s appearance, traits, gender role behav- iors, and occupation. Information about one component can affect inferences made about the others, and people will attempt to maintain consistency among the components.

Physical features seem to be central: People viewed men and women as differing more in physical features than in psychological characteristics (Deaux & Lewis, 1984), but research with children (Miller, Lurye, Zosuls, & Ruble, 2009) suggests that the application of stereo- type components may not be equal: Girls were described in terms of physical appearance, whereas descriptions of boys focused more on traits and activities. As Figure 3.3 shows, when people have information about behaviors, they make inferences about traits, and information about occupations can affect judgments about behaviors. However, physical appearance affected judgments about the other components more strongly than information about traits, behaviors, or occupations infl uenced judgments about appearance. In addition,

Figure 3.3 Components of Deaux and Lewis’s Model of Gender Stereotyping

Gender Stereotypes 55

specifi c personal information can outweigh gender as a factor in subsequent judgments about a person. For example, men who were described as managing the house or taking care of children were also judged as likely to be emotional and gentle. Such counterstereotypical information about men also increased the likelihood that such men would be judged as likely to be homosexual—“those who don’t fi t the mold in one way . . . are often confused with those who do not fi t in another way” (Sell, 2004, p. 134).

Although the participants in a stereotyping study (Deaux & Lewis, 1984) saw differ- ences in the physical characteristics, traits, behaviors, and occupations of women and men, their ratings of the two categories refl ected the possibility that women may have some characteristics more typical of men, or men may have some characteristics more typical of women. That is, people do not view the stereotypes for women and men as completely separate categories but as probabilistic and overlapping. Participants judged the probabil- ity of a man and woman having certain characteristics on a scale of 0 (no chance) to 1.00 (certainty). The participants judged the probability that a man would be strong as .66, a high probability but not a certainty. However, they also judged the chances that a woman would be strong as .44, a lower probability but far from unlikely. An analysis of physical and stereotypical characteristics of men and women as well as dozens of psychological and behavioral factors (Carothers & Reis, 2013) showed that people tend to perceive the physi- cal and stereotypical characteristics of women and men as falling into two categories, but they see most behavioral and psychological factors as falling somewhere on a continuum. These fi ndings support the notion that people do think of behavior and psychological characteristics as dimensions that include overlap between women and men.

Therefore, adults and children use several dimensions to categorize men and women, draw- ing inferences on one dimension based on information from another. What traits are ste- reotypically associated with these categories? Studies in the 1960s and 1970s often found evidence for beliefs that matched elements of the Male Gender Role Identity or the Cult of True Womanhood, and studies continue to fi nd remnants of these beliefs (Ferrar, Olds, & Walters, 2012; Hundhammer & Mussweiler, 2012). (See According to the Media and According to the Research for examples of stereotyping in the media and its potential effects.) However, recent research also indicates changes in attitudes.

Beliefs held by college students in the 1960s showed strong acceptance of gender stereotypes by both college men and women (Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman, & Broverman, 1968). Table 3.2 shows how some of the items that differentiated women and men match the com- ponents in the Cult of True Womanhood and Male Gender Role Identity. Not all of the traits these college students named match these categories; for example, one of the characteristics of women was “talkative,” which does not fi t into traits for the Cult of True Womanhood, and college students in the 1960s did not mention sexual purity as a defi ning trait of women. They did, however, mention several characteristics of men that relate to sex, including “worldly” and “talks freely with men about sex,” which matches the suggestion (Good & Sherrod, 2001) for an additional component of the Male Gender Role—Be a Stud. Both the women and men in early studies (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972; Rosenkrantz et al., 1968) gave more positive ratings to the characteristics associated with men than with women, which suggests that these stereotypes include gender bias.

Have subsequent changes prompted decreased bias? Administrations of the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS) to students at the same university over a 20-year period showed that college students in the United States (Spence & Hahn, 1997) and Canada (Loo & Thorpe, 1998) became more egalitarian between the 1970s and the 1990s. A meta-analysis of studies that used the AWS revealed a positive relationship between feminist attitudes and the year of administration—but a stronger relationship for women (Twenge, 1997). Two additional studies (Diekman & Eagly, 2000; Prentice & Carranza, 2002) showed larger

56 Gender Stereotypes

According to the Media . . . White Men Are in Charge

In both television commercials and entertainment programming, White men are more common, more prominent, and more dominant than others. According to content analyses of commercials, White male characters were more prominent than any other group (Ganahl, Prinsen, & Netzley, 2003; Smith, Choueiti, Scofi eld, & Pieper, 2013). Women tended to be cast into supporting roles, and male prominence extended even to those who appeared in voice only: Male voices narrated commer- cials more than 10 times more often than female voices. The patterns of men in posi- tions of authority and men as the voice of authority exist in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, Asia, and the United States (Furnham & Mak, 1999) as well as in Saudi Arabia (Nassif & Gunter, 2008) and Spain (Valls-Fernández & Martínez- Vincente, 2007).

In U.S. entertainment programming, women have a history of underrepresenta- tion. Despite increases in female characters during the 1980s and 1990s, women have failed to reach parity, even in the 21st century (Smith et al., 2013). Women’s roles also tend to be less signifi cant and less serious (Harwood & Anderson, 2002). This pattern also emerged in an analysis of feature fi lms (Eschholz, Bufkin, & Long, 2002). Women are more likely to be shown as dependent, and around the world, women appear more often at home than in other settings (Furnham & Mak, 1999).

Women are not the only stereotyped group on television. In prime time televi- sion programming in the United States, 74% of characters were White, whereas only 16% were African American, 5% were Latino/Latina, and less than 2% were Asian American (Monk-Turner, Heiserman, Johnson, Cotton, & Jackson, 2010). These percentages have not changed signifi cantly in more than a decade and rep- resent a severe underrepresentation for Latinos/Latinas and an overrepresentation of White characters. African American characters are underrepresented by being less likely to be a leading character than Whites or Latinos. Within each ethnic group, female characters appear less frequently than male characters (Smith et al., 2013).

Ethnic stereotyping has decreased over the past decade in some ways but persists in some aspects (Monk-Turner et al., 2010). For example, no differences appeared among characters from the different ethnic groups in terms of grooming or dress, but Latino/Latina characters spoke with heavier accents than those from other eth- nic groups. The intelligence of characters varied by ethnicity: African American and Latino/Latina characters were sometimes portrayed as the most intelligent but also as the least intelligent character. White characters were very rarely depicted as least intelligent.

The combination of these stereotypical characterizations of gender and ethnicity place White men in dominant positions throughout television.

Gender Stereotypes 57

According to the Research . . . Biased Media Portrayals Perpetuate Stereotyping

When people see women and ethnic minorities portrayed in stereotypical ways, those presentations infl uence the way they think about and judge individuals from those groups: “Most viewers do not just consume the images and storylines in the media and just walk away untouched” (Eschholz et al., 2002, p. 301). Rather, media por- trayals infl uence people’s perceptions of women and ethnic minorities. That is, biased portrayals perpetuate stereotyping (Brescoll & Lafrance, 2004) and encourage women and men to behave in stereotypical ways (Hundhammer & Mussweiler, 2012). Several studies using the “priming” technique demonstrated this effect. In one study (Murphy, 1998), participants read a fake autobiography about an African American man who was aggressive, lazy, unintelligent, and criminal—the most prominent of the negative characteristics associated with this ethnic group. This presentation primed participants to accept negative views of African American men, affecting their later judgments of Rodney King (receiving a beating from police) and Magic Johnson (being infected with HIV). Participants who read neutral or counterstereotypical stories made judg- ments that differed signifi cantly. Later studies (Dixon, 2008; Dixon & Azocar, 2007; Hundhammer & Mussweiler, 2012) showed similar effects. Another priming study (Brown Givens & Monahan, 2005) demonstrated that negative video portrayals of African American women affected subsequent judgments about an African American woman in a job interview.

Another view of the power of stereotyping on television (and in other media) occurs through its representation of various groups (Harwood & Anderson, 2002). This position holds that the way ethnic groups, women, children, and older people appear in the media refl ects their power and vitality in society. Groups that are minimized, distorted, or marginalized are at risk because these portrayals make the groups seem less signifi cant than they really are. Thus, media content is important not only for the power that it exerts on individuals’ views and behavior but also for how it refl ects and shapes cultural values.

Concerning gender stereotypes on television, there is bad news and good news. The bad news is that stereotypical portrayals of women and ethnic minorities abound on television, and these presentations have the power to do harm. Regard- less of people’s knowledge that “it’s only on television,” these messages are per- suasive and powerful (Eschholz et al., 2002; Ward & Harrison, 2005). The good news is that the media can also work to counteract stereotyping. Commercials and programming that present counterstereotypical information can counteract stereo- types. These presentations can offer models who behave in ways contrary to stereo- types and open behavioral possibilities (Browne, 1998). Therefore, the media tend to perpetuate negative stereotypes, but programming can—and sometimes does— counteract stereotyping.

58 Gender Stereotypes

Table 3.2 Stereotypical Traits of Men and Women Matched to Descriptions from Rosenkrantz et al. (1968)

Male Gender Role Identity Component

Men Women

Stereotypic Traits in Study Cult of True Womanhood Component

Stereotypic Traits in Study

Give ’Em Hell Aggressive Pious Religious

Not uncomfortable about being aggressive

Adventurous

Competitive

Sturdy Oak Unemotional Submissive Aware of feelings of others

Hides emotions Gentle

Not excitable in a minor crisis Tactful

Able to separate feelings from ideas Quiet

Big Wheel Dominant Domestic Neat in habits

Skilled in business Strong need for security

Knows the ways of the world

Acts as a leader

Self-confi dent

Ambitious

Worldly

No Sissy Stuff Never cries Purity Does not use harsh language

Not dependent

Direct

Thinks men are superior to women

Not conceited about appearance

Source: Based on “Sex-Role Stereotypes and Self-Concepts in College Students” by P. Rosenkrantz, S. Vogel, H. Bee, I. Broverman, and D. M. Broverman, 1968, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, p. 291. Adapted by permission of Helen Bee.

changes in the stereotypes for women than for men. Other research indicated a liberalization of gender roles over the past 30 years (Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004). A study that examined age and endorsement of stereotypical personality traits (Strough, Leszczynski, Neely, Flinn, & Margrett, 2007) found that women who were adolescents during or after the feminist move- ment of the 1960s endorsed more masculine personality traits than older women did. A study of gender stereotyping (Lopez-Zafra & Garcia-Retamero, 2012) showed that gender stereotypes among adolescents and adults in Spain included fl exible dimensions, especially for the stereotypes of women. Therefore, these studies show that attitudes toward women have become more egalitarian and less biased, which signals some changes in the traditional stereotypes of women, but attitudes toward men have not shown parallel changes.

The stereotype for men seems to be more stable, and men may be the victims of more stringent stereotyping than women. As Douglas Todd’s (2013) headline article pointed out, the stereotyping applied to men possibly surpasses that applied to women. However, this pattern of thought is not new. College students who described their views of women and men applied more stereotypical terms to men than to women more than two decades ago (Hort, Fagot, & Leinbach, 1990). Masculinity is also viewed as more diffi cult to maintain

Gender Stereotypes 59

and more easily threatened (Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, & Weaver, 2008) and more strongly determined by biology (Smiler & Gelman, 2008).

In addition, men are the targets of some negative attitudes. Assessments of women’s attitudes toward men have revealed that women hold ambivalent (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Glick et al., 2004) and negative (Stephan, Stephan, Demitrakis, Yamada, & Clason, 2000) attitudes toward men. The ambivalence includes feelings of hostility toward men and their gender role combined with admiration and attraction. The disapproving attitudes originate with women’s negative contacts with men more than with the infl uence of negative stereotypes of men. Indeed, the results of a study of evaluations of same- and other-gender individuals (Edmonds & Cahoon, 1993) showed that women tended to believe that men held higher degrees of bias concerning women than the men expressed. That is, women showed negative stereotyping of men.

Gendered Voices: The Problem Disappeared

“Our car was having some problem, and my wife took it to be repaired,” a man said. “She called me from the auto repair place, furious with the treatment she had received. The men there were stonewalling her—failing to listen to what she was telling them and treating her as though she couldn’t possibly be capable of relating problems concerning an automobile. She was steamed.

“I went down there, and the problem disappeared. I was a man and apparently privy to the innermost secrets of automobiles. They treated me as though I would understand everything perfectly. Both my wife and I thought it was really absurd.”

“One of my friends was upset that it cost $3.20 to get her shirt dry-cleaned,” a woman told me. “She asked them why it was so much—the shirt was a tailored, plain shirt. They told her that women’s blouses cost more than men’s shirts, regardless of the style, because women’s clothes don’t fi t on the standard machine for pressing and must be hand-pressed. She wondered if that was really true, and she gave the shirt to a male friend to take to the same dry cleaners. The problem apparently disappeared, because they charged him $1.25 for the very same garment. Isn’t that beyond stereotyping?”

Some evidence suggests that a process moderates the application of gender stereotypes: Men and women may not apply stereotypes to themselves as strictly as they apply these stereotypes to others. U.S. college students hold stereotypical beliefs about gender, but they have also shown that they are willing to exempt themselves from these stereotypes (Williams & Best, 1990). That is, these students rated themselves as varying from the stereotype. By allowing such personal exceptions as routine, people decrease the power of stereotypes to control and restrict their lives.

Therefore, some of the positive attitudes about men and negative attitudes about women found in earlier studies seem to show some changes. More recent studies have shown a shift toward greater acceptance of gender role fl exibility for women and an increase in positive attitudes toward women. But how—and when—do these stereotypes develop? And how do they change over the lifespan?

Stereotypes over the Lifespan

In order to develop gender stereotypes, children must have gender knowledge, which begins to develop during the fi rst years of their lives. By age 2, children apply gender labels, which predict future behavior based on gender (Zosuls et al., 2009). Children as young as 3 years old start to show signs of gender stereotyping (Martin & Little, 1990). This development

60 Gender Stereotypes

is not uniform or simple; 6-year-old children showed a pattern of selective stereotyping in which they made gender-stereotypical judgments about children whose toy interests were similar to their own but failed to make stereotypical judgments for children whose interests were different from their own. This behavior probably refl ected a more complete develop- ment of knowledge about self and others like self, which extended to gender. As they get older, children’s gender stereotyping becomes stronger (Martin, Wood, & Little, 1990). By age 4 some strong gender stereotyping appears, such a girl’s fondness for pink, frilly dresses (Halim, Ruble, & Amodio, 2011). Between ages 8 and 10 , children’s judgments of both genders tend to be stereotypical (Martin et al., 1990).

This pattern of stereotype development appears in Table 3.3 . Children in the fi rst stage have learned characteristics and behaviors associated directly with each gender, such as the toy preferences of each. However, in this stage, children have not learned the many indirect associations with gender, associations that are essential for the formation of stereotypes. In the second stage, children have begun to develop the indirect associations for behaviors associated with their own gender but not yet for the other gender. In the third stage, children have learned these indirect associations for the other gender as well as their own, allowing them to make stereotypical judgments of both women and men.

A specifi c cognitive process called illusory correlation allows children (and adults) to form and maintain stereotypes (Sherman et al., 2009). This process may be described as “the erroneous perception of covariation between two events when no correlation exists, or the perception of a correlation as stronger than it actually is” (Meehan & Janik, 1990, p. 84). The cognitive process of category accentuation also aids stereotyping, exaggerating existing differences (Sherman et al., 2009). Gender fi ts into this conceptualization; people perceive that relationships exist between gender and various behaviors when no relationship exists or when the relationship is not as strong as their perception indicates, and people accentuate the existing differences to sharpen the categories.

Illusory correlation operates in second- and fourth-grade children in a way that is con- sistent with developing gender stereotypes (Meehan & Janik, 1990; Susskind, 2003). Fur- thermore, children’s tendency to gender stereotype creates distortions in their memory for gender-related information. The perception of correlations can be an important factor in maintaining stereotypes for both children and adults; when people believe that activities are related to one or the other gender, they feel comfortable thinking in terms of these catego- rizations. This perceptual bias acts to maintain stereotypes. However, one study (Susskind, 2003) indicated that children do not ignore counterstereotypical information, and the pre- sentation of such information may be a way to diminish gender stereotyping. Thus, when children see fathers cooking and mothers performing home repairs, these observations may act to decrease stereotyping by breaking down illusory correlations.

Table 3.3 Stages of Gender Stereotype Development

Stage Gender Knowledge Status of Gender Stereotypes

1 Behaviors and characteristics directly associated with gender

Undeveloped

2 Beginnings of indirect associations with gender for own sex but not other sex

Self-stereotype but none for other sex

3 Complex, indirect gender-related associations for same and other sex

Stereotypes for self and other sex

Source: Based on data from “The Development of Gender Stereotype Components,” by C. L. Martin, C. H. Wood, and J. K. Little, 1990, Child Development, 61, pp. 1891–1904.

Gender Stereotypes 61

Gender stereotyping follows age-related trends similar to the development of other gen- der knowledge. That is, young children show less gender stereotyping than older children (Durkin & Nugent, 1998), men are subject to harsher stereotyping than women, and girls stereotype less strongly than boys. Younger children look for male–female differences and try to understand and categorize such differences (Martin & Ruble, 2004; Miller et al., 2009), whereas older children are more acceptant of deviations from gender stereotypes. Studying gender stereotyping in individuals ranging from kindergarten children to college students showed that the gender stereotyping increases to a point between ages 5 and 7 and then becomes more fl exible with age (Biernat, 1991; Trautner et al., 2005).

Another period of infl exibility occurs during adolescence, followed by greater fl exibility that begins to develop during young adulthood (Lobel, Nov-Krispin, Schiller, Lobel, & Feldman, 2004). However, gender stereotyping does not disappear; some adults stereotype more strongly than others. The tendency for girls to stereotype less than boys extends into adulthood; women show less strict gender stereotyping than men in many countries, including Great Britain (Sweeting, Bhaskar, Benzeval, Popham, & Hunt, 2014) and Ghana (Akotia & Anum, 2012). However, both children and adults show a tendency to attribute gender-stereotypical traits to women, men, and children, including a reluctance to attribute feminine characteristics to males and a tendency to associate femininity with being childlike (Powlishta, 2000).

Older adults may seem to have a stronger tendency to stereotype on the basis of gender than younger adults, but this difference may not be as strong as many people imagine or may be due to the process of aging. In a study that compared gender stereotyping by contrasting the responses of younger and older adults (Robertson et al., 2002), strong gender stereotypes appeared for both age groups. The apparent strength of gender stereotyping among older people may refl ect a generational rather than age difference; these older adults grew up dur- ing a time before the changes in gender roles that occurred over the past 40 years. Thus the tendency for younger adults to show less gender stereotyping than older adults may refl ect their experience more than their age.

In summary, the development of gender stereotypes begins early, with 3-year-old children knowing about gender-related differences in behavior. As children acquire information about gender, they become capable of forming and maintaining elaborate stereotypes for men and women, including a conceptualization of masculinity and femininity. Even when adults become less tied to gender stereotypes, those stereotypes may not lose their power to infl u- ence attitudes and behavior.

Negative Effects of Stereotyping

Overt prejudice and discrimination are obvious negative effects of stereotyping, but the decreas- ing acceptability of such expressions have diminished their expression. However, implicit ste- reotyping continues, which opens the possibility that the negative effects of stereotyping may be taking more subtle forms. Stereotype threat and benevolent sexism are two effects of gender stereotyping that are negative but less obvious than explicit prejudice and discrimination.

Stereotype Threat

Stereotypes have the power to prompt prejudice and discrimination from others. In addition, members of stereotyped groups may handicap themselves by accepting the negative evalua- tions of others. In 1995, Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson reported on a study that showed how the existence of negative stereotypes affects those who are part of the stereotyped groups. They proposed that people feel threatened when they believe that their performance will identify them as examples of their group’s negative stereotype. Steele and Aronson labeled

62 Gender Stereotypes

this situation stereotype threat because the presence of these negative stereotypes threatens performance and self-concept. Even if the person does not believe or accept the stereotype, the threat of being identifi ed with a negative stereotype can be an ever-present factor that puts a person in the spotlight and creates tension and anxiety about performance.

By manipulating the expectations of the implications of taking a test, Steele and Aronson showed that those expectations affected participants’ performance. Steele and Aronson’s early research focused on African Americans and academic achievement, but Steele (1997) drew on the stereotype of women and math to expand the scope of stereotype threat. He demonstrated a decrease in math performance in women who believed that the test they were taking was a test of mathematics ability; these women performed worse than women who thought the test was just another test. African Americans and women performed more poorly than White men, who are not threatened by negative stereotypes of their abilities in math. Women who accepted the negative stereotype about women and math ability showed greater susceptibility to stereotype threat than women who were less accepting of the stereo- type, which affected math performance and career expectations for the two groups of women (Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau, 2004).

How infl uential is stereotype threat? A meta-analysis of experimental studies on stereo- type threat (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008) indicated a small to moderate effect overall, but the infl uence was stronger for some groups and some situations. For example, women expe- rienced more of a performance decrease when the cues concerning their group member- ship were subtle rather than blatant. Minority ethnic groups are even more infl uenced by stereotype threat than are women, but some people get a double dose of stereotype threat, such as Latina women, who were affected by stereotype threat on a test of mathematical and spatial ability (Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002).

Photo 3.1 Stereotype threat can cause people to fear confi rming a stereotype, and thus they perform more poorly than they otherwise might.

Gender Stereotypes 63

Stereotype threat applies to a variety of people in many situations. The critical elements include the perception that one is a member of a stereotyped group and a situation that evokes the stereotype. For example, White men can be threatened by stereotypes of math ability when reminded that Asians are superior at math (Smith & White, 2002). Men’s per- formance on a social sensitivity task decreased after being reminded that men tend not to be socially sensitive (Koenig & Eagly, 2005). The threat can be very subtle but still infl uential; for example, women who fi lled out a questionnaire about menstruation before taking a math test did more poorly on the math than women who received positive information about menstruation (Wister, Stubbs, & Shipman, 2013).

Speculations concerning the mechanisms through which stereotype threat functions include an effect on working memory (Schmader, 2010). If individuals in the stereotyped groups think about the negative information presented to them, this cognitive activity would diminish a resource that is important to solving the task and thus decrease perfor- mance. Other speculation about how stereotype threat works involves motivation (Forbes & Schmader, 2010): Stereotype threat can also have negative effects on motivation (Thoman, Smith, Brown, Chase, & Lee, 2013), which persist long after the delivery of the threat. Table 3.4 summarizes some of the conditions of stereotype threat.

Children begin to be subject to stereotype threat when they become aware of the stereo- typing that others do (between ages 6 and 10 years). Individuals from stigmatized groups (such as African American and Latino children) became aware of others’ stereotyping before children from more privileged groups (McKown & Weinstein, 2003). This knowledge builds the basis for stereotype threat, and children with knowledge of the stereotyping process from stigmatized groups were more likely to exhibit the negative performance effects of stereotype threat than other children.

Stereotype threat appears to be easily summoned, but research also suggests that nullify- ing stereotype threat may not be too diffi cult. Just the suggestion that men and women perform equally well on a test was enough to avert the effects of stereotype threat on a math test (Smith & White, 2002) and so was a request for the critical information after rather than before people complete the test (Kirnan, Alfi eri, Bragger, & Harris, 2009; Wister et al., 2013). Notifying women about stereotype threat is not suffi cient ( Tomasetto & Appoloni, 2013), but discussing the existence of stereotype threat diminished its effects for women’s performance on a math test (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005). Research on brain function (Krendl, Richeson, Kelley, & Heatherton, 2008; Wraga, Helt, Jacobs, & Sullivan, 2007) has revealed that a certain area of the brain is activated by stereotype threat, and different areas become more active when stereotype threat is nullifi ed. Therefore,

Table 3.4 Conditions and Results of Stereotype Threat

Targets Threatening Statement Lower Performance if Targets Believed the Test Assessed

African American college students African Americans perform worse Academic aptitude

Women Women perform worse Math ability

African Americans and women African Americans and women perform worse

Math ability

Latina women Latinas perform worse Math ability

Women Filling out a questionnaire about menstruation

Math test

White men Men are not socially sensitive Social sensitivity task

64 Gender Stereotypes

stereotypes that individuals carry around with them may threaten their performance in situations that match the stereotyped ones, but nullifying those stereotypes may avoid these negative effects.

Benevolent Sexism

Psychology’s traditional view of prejudice holds that people within a group (the in-group) form negative feelings about those in another group (the out-group) (Allport, 1954). The identifi cation of the out-group may include stereotyping that sharpens the difference between the two groups and erases the individual differences of those people in the out-group. The results of prejudice include a combination of increased feelings of worth for people in the in- group and a devaluation of those in the out-group. For example, women and people of color are frequent targets of derogatory public remarks based on ethnicity and gender (Nielsen, 2002). Every one of the African Americans in this study reported that he or she had been the target of offensive racist remarks made by a stranger in public. Does gender fi t into this model? Are men and women in-groups and out-groups to each other?

Listening to the conversations of groups of women or men saying terrible things about the other may seem to confi rm this view, but research results do not support it. Although women are the targets of various types of discrimination in terms of economic, political, educational, and professional achievement, attitudes about women are not uniformly nega- tive. Indeed, one line of research from Alice Eagly and her colleagues (Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1991) showed that women as a category receive more favorable evaluations than men. Results from a meta-analysis (Feingold, 1998) indicated that women received slightly more favorable ratings than men. Thus, people in general have positive feelings about the char- acteristics stereotypically associated with women, which is not consistent with an overall prejudice against women.

Peter Glick, Susan Fiske, and their colleagues (Fiske, 2012; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Glick et al., 2000) have researched this puzzle in gender ste- reotyping and formulated an answer that demonstrates another negative yet subtle effect of stereotyping. Their focus has been on separating positive from negative aspects of sex- ism (prejudice based on sex or gender). They call the negative aspects hostile sexism , which includes negative attitudes toward women. They also proposed the concept of benevolent sexism , which they defi ned as positive attitudes that nonetheless serve to belittle women and keep them subservient. Benevolent sexism is represented in the attitudes that women deserve special treatment, should be set on a pedestal, and should be revered. Despite the positive nature of these beliefs, people who hold such attitudes tend to see women as weaker, more in need of protection, and less competent than men (Fiske, 2012; Fiske et al., 2002).

Ironically, it may be the favorable traits stereotypically associated with women that serve to perpetuate their lower status (Fiske, 2012; Glick & Fiske, 2001). When people see women as warm and caring but less competent than men, they may give women positive evaluations but still feel that women need men to protect and take care of them, which justifi es women’s subservience. When women accept these stereotypes, they endorse prejudice against them- selves and help to perpetuate negative stereotyping (Jost & Kay, 2005; Sibley, Overall, & Duckitt, 2007). These stereotypes are consistent with romantic chivalry and thus are attrac- tive to both women and men (Viki, Abrams, & Hutchinson, 2003). This type of benevolent prejudice may rationalize racism as well as sexism, casting the dominant group as benevolent protectors rather than oppressors.

Research on the contents of stereotypes (Eckes, 2002; Fiske, 2012; Fiske et al., 2002; Wade & Brewer, 2006) has shown that combinations of two dimensions—competence and warmth—capture many beliefs about stereotyped groups. The mixed values of low

Gender Stereotypes 65

competence–high warmth and high competence–low warmth have been of most interest to researchers, but the two other combinations of high warmth–high competence and low warmth–low competence also occur. Figure 3.4 shows these combinations, the feelings asso- ciated with each, and examples. Research on this stereotype content model (Eckes, 2002; Fiske, 2012; Fiske et al., 2002) confi rmed that people evaluated a number of lower-status groups (women, ethnic minority groups, older people, disabled people) as less competent but warm and thus rated them positively. People from some high-status groups were not so well liked; they were respected and judged as competent but not warm. Indeed, fi nding examples of women who receive ratings high in both warmth and competence is diffi cult (Cikara & Fiske, 2009). Therefore, this view promotes a complex analysis of the components of stereotypes as well as a broad view of the effects of such stereotyping as it applies to gender and other stereotyped categories.

Men are not exempt from ambivalent sexism; the stereotypic characteristics of men can also be analyzed into hostile and benevolent components that are analogous to those that apply to women (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Glick et al., 2004). However, hostile attitudes toward men do not erase men’s dominant status because men are “bad but bold.” These characteris- tics are not necessarily consistent with men as kind but signal that they should be in charge (Glick & Whitehead, 2010).

Considering Diversity

Gender stereotypes affect how women and men think of themselves and how they evaluate their own behaviors as well as the behaviors of others. “Although every individual belongs to at least one sexual, racial, and social class category simultaneously, such categories do not have an equal social meaning” (Unger, 1995, p. 427). How do different societies construct masculinity and femininity? Do cultures around the world stereotype gender-related behav- iors in ways that are similar to those in North America?

Figure 3.4 Combinations of the Two Dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model and Examples of Each Combination

66 Gender Stereotypes

Stereotypes exist for ethnicity as well as for gender, and these stereotypes may interact. Evidence exists that African American and White women hold similar conceptualizations of womanhood (Settles, Pratt-Hyatt, & Buchanan, 2008). But whether ethnic or gender stereotypes are more important varies according to situation. For example, young Hispanic American women were able to use their ethnic identity as a positive factor in becoming successful students, but young Hispanic men often found that their ethnic identity was a handicap in becoming a good student (Lasley Barajas & Pierce, 2001). For African American college students, the situation of attending a predominantly White or predominantly African American campus contributed more heavily to the feeling of being stereotyped than gender did (Chavous, Harris, Rivas, Helaire, & Green, 2004).

Cross-cultural investigations of gender stereotypes have often sought universals but have found both similarities and differences in the concepts of masculinity and femininity. One extensive investigation (Williams & Best, 1990) took place in 30 different countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. College students in these countries rated a list of 300 adjectives according to the extent to which each was more frequently (and thus stereotypically) associated with men or women. The results revealed more similarities than differences in these gender stereotypes. Six adjectives were associated with males in all of the cultures— adventurous , dominant , forceful , independent , masculine , and strong —and three adjectives were identifi ed with females in all cultures— sentimental , submissive , and superstitious . In addition, a long list of adjectives appeared as male-associated or female-associated in a large majority of the cultures, and only a few adjectives were male- associated in one culture and female-associated in another. These fi ndings furnish evidence for similarities in gender stereotypes across cultures, but the similarities were far short of being universal.

A reanalysis of some of these data in terms of the Five Factor Model of personality (Wil- liams, Satterwhite, & Best, 1999) revealed even more similarities across cultures than the original analysis. Using averages for 25 countries, differences in gender stereotypes appeared in all fi ve factors. Participants scored the male stereotype higher in Extraversion, Conscien- tiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience and placed the female stereotype higher on Agreeableness. Not all countries adhered to this pattern, and individuals within the countries did not necessarily believe they fi t the stereotypes. Later research using the Five Factor Model of personality (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; Löckenhoff et al., 2014) confi rmed a pattern of cross-cultural gender differences that match gender stereotypes in many ways but also reported that these stereotypical gender differences were small.

Despite cross-cultural similarities of gender stereotypes, not all cultures hold the same views of what traits, characteristics, and patterns of behavior men and women should exhibit. One cross-cultural review (Gibbons, Hamby, & Dennis, 1997) found that no single gender distinction applied to all cultures.

Japan was one of the cultures that showed a different pattern of gender stereotypes than many others (Williams & Best, 1990; Williams et al., 1999). Research on gender roles in Japan (Sugihara & Katsurada, 2002) showed that the characteristics that differentiate women and men in the United States, such as independent, assertive, and self-reliant, do not do so in Japan. Indeed, these characteristics are not considered desirable for either Japanese women or men. As Richard Nisbett (2003) discussed, Asian culture promotes the development of strong family ties and obligations, making conformity and obedience valued traits for every- one. In the United States and Europe, these characteristics would be considered feminine, but in Japan, they are not gendered.

In China, another Asian culture, the ideal man is a warrior but also a cook, a teacher, an artist, and a musician (Chia, Moore, Lam, Chuang, & Cheng, 1994). People in both Japan (Sugihara & Katsurada, 2002) and China (Hong, Veach, & Lawrenz, 2003) exhibit gender

Gender Stereotypes 67

stereotyping, and there is some indication (Pugsley, 2010; Tan, Shaw, Cheng, & Kim, 2013) that the global media are changing Asian views of masculinity in a direction more consis- tent with Western standards. However, this transition is not yet complete: A cross-cultural study with participants from Korea and the United States (Cuddy et al., 2015) found that the cultural values of each society affected the evaluation of whether a trait was masculine or feminine. In Korea, collectivism was rated as masculine, whereas in the United States, collectivism was viewed as a feminine trait.

Other cross-cultural research on gender stereotypes has shown that some of those stereo- types are inaccurate. For example, many people in the United States believe that people in their society are less guilty of gender stereotyping than others. Research comparing Italian and American men (Tager & Good, 2005) showed that Italian male students endorsed tra- ditional masculinity less than American male students. Another misconception about gender applies to Arab women, whom many see as veiled, passive, and secluded within the home. Research on Arab women in the United States (Read, 2003) showed that Arab women are more diverse and less traditional than the stereotype suggests, especially Arab women who are Christian rather than Muslim.

Going beyond variation in specifi c gender-related characteristics, some scholars have asked questions concerning how gender stereotyping creates gender-related attitudes that are com- mon over many cultures. The prevalence of male dominance has prompted a broader ques- tion: Are men dominant and women subordinate in all cultures? Is this pattern universal and thus the basis for most gender stereotyping?

The answer from anthropology to the question of universal male dominance is “no” (Bol- ger, 2010; Bonvillain, 2000; Marler, 2006; Salzman, 1999). Some societies have included equal access to resources and power for both women and men. But egalitarian cultures tend to be simple, pastoral societies rather than complex, industrialized cultures. Many more societies have placed men rather than women in positions of power and control; few have enacted egalitarian arrangements. A possible reason for this dominance is men’s tendency to a social dominance orientation versus women’s greater emphasis on forming relationships (Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994). Research on sexist atti- tudes (Christopher & Mull, 2006; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007) confi rmed the relation- ship between social dominance orientation and sexist attitudes among men.

Another view is based on the confl icts that come from women and men living in male- dominated societies that depend on and value women. This situation sets up attitudes that demean women yet still include positive components. Peter Glick et al. (2000) have delin- eated the concepts of benevolent and hostile sexism toward women, which relate to the stereotypically positive (warm, nurturing) and negative (incompetent, need to be cared for) characteristics of women. These researchers demonstrated the implications of these two components of gender stereotypes in a large (more than 15,000 people) cross-cultural study in 19 countries around the world. They found a positive relationship between hostile and benevolent sexism in every one of the 19 nations: Higher hostile sexism scores were related to higher benevolent sexism scores. They explained the connection as being a result of the relationships between men and women in male-dominated cultures, which create both women’s subordination and their value as sexual and domestic companions and caregivers. For such systems to remain stable, both women and men must hold attitudes that support the system, and some research (Connelly & Heesacker, 2012; Roets, Van Hiel, & Dhont, 2012) indicates that they do. These ideologies form a complementary system that main- tains societies in which men dominate, and research from Belgium (Delacollette, Dumont, Sarlet, & Dardenne, 2013) has shown that men understand their advantage in this respect. Thus, gender stereotypes seem to perpetuate sexist discrimination in many cultures (Désert & Leyens, 2006).

68 Gender Stereotypes

Similar research on hostile and benevolent attitudes about men (Glick et al., 2004) revealed similar patterns across 16 nations. Ratings of men were not as positive as ratings of women; participants saw men as more ruthless, unfeeling, and self-centered than women. However, both female and male participants tended to see men as more powerful and bold. Ratings of men as “bad but bold” are consistent with their dominant position in societies (Glick & Whitehead, 2010).

Results from these studies on benevolent and hostile attitudes toward women and men show that both men and women hold these attitudes. Although women and men were likely to have more positive opinions of their own sex, both endorsed beliefs of hostility and benevolence. Furthermore, the degree of acceptance of hostile and benevolent sexism predicted the level of gender inequality in these societies. Thus, these stereotypes are related to the continuance of gender inequality in many countries.

As the Glick et al. (2000) results showed, women often hold more egalitarian views of women and women’s roles than men endorse, but even this difference is not universal. No differences in attitudes toward women appeared in a study (Gibbons et al., 1997) of people in Malaysia or Pakistan, and men in Brazil expressed more liberal views of women than women did. The distinction between traditional beliefs and beliefs concerning equal opportunity and equal power might apply to all cultures, but the specifi cs of what constitutes traditionalism vary. The division of activities and behaviors into male and female domains is universal, without worldwide agreement about what those activities and characteristics are. Such divisions of activities, however, form the basis for gender roles and furnish the potential for gender stereotyping.

Summary

The term gender stereotype refers to the beliefs associated with the characteristics and per- sonalities appropriate to men and women. Current stereotypes of women and men have been infl uenced by historical views of women and men. The Cult of True Womanhood that arose during Victorian times held that women should be pious, pure, submissive, and domestic. For men, several models of masculinity show gender role stereotypes. One of these is the Male Gender Role Identity, which holds that to be successful as men, males must identify with the elements of that role, including the need to avoid all femi- nine activities and interests, have an achievement orientation, suppress emotions, and be aggressive and assertive.

The concepts of masculinity and femininity have a long history in the fi eld of psychol- ogy as personality traits measured by various psychological tests. The fi rst such test was the Attitude Interest Analysis Survey, which conceptualized masculinity and femininity as opposite poles of one continuum. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory still uses this unidimensional approach. A more recent approach to the measurement of mas- culinity and femininity includes the concept of androgyny. Several tests have adopted this strategy, including the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. These tests include separate scales for masculinity and femininity, allowing the classifi cation of people as not only masculine or feminine but also as androgynous. These assessments focus on the explicit components of stereotyping that people are aware of, but stereotyping also includes implicit components that are unconscious. Assessment of implicit stereotypes reveals that even people who say that they reject gender stereotypes may accept them on an unconscious level.

Gender stereotypes have four different aspects—physical characteristics, traits, behav- iors, and occupations. Each aspect may vary independently, but people make judgments about one based on information about another, to form an interdependent network of

Gender Stereotypes 69

associations. People use this network of information in making deductions about gender- related characteristics.

Gender stereotyping begins early in development and results in simplifi ed cognitive pro- cessing that allows children to make easier decisions and judgments but also leads children to hold rigid rules for gender-related behavior. Stereotyping is maintained by the illusion that more activities and characteristics are associated with gender than actually are. Children become more fl exible in applying gender rules after about age 7, allowing themselves more exceptions for individual variation. Adolescents go through another period of rigid stereo- typing, followed by greater fl exibility during adulthood. Stereotyping may not be necessary for adults, but the process continues during adulthood, along with its negative implications.

Negative aspects of stereotyping include not only prejudice and discrimination but also stereotype threat and benevolent sexism. Stereotype threat occurs when people feel that their performance in certain situations will identify them as examples of their group’s negative stereotype. This perception may negatively affect their performance. Invoking stereotype threat is easy, but dispelling it may also be easy. Benevolent sexism consists of positive atti- tudes that nonetheless serve to belittle women and keep them subservient. Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are related, and both women and men hold such attitudes.

Cross-cultural research on gender roles and gender stereotyping indicates that all cultures delegate different roles to men and women, but what traits are associated with each show some cultural variation. Gender stereotypes have more similarities than differences across cultures, with the male stereotype fi tting the instrumental, or agentic, model and the female stereotype fi tting the expressive, or communal, model.

Glossary

androgyny a blending of masculinity and femininity, in which the desirable characteristics associated with both men and women are combined within individuals.

benevolent sexism positive attitudes that nonetheless serve to belittle women and keep them subservient.

gender stereotype the beliefs about the characteristics associated with, and the activities appropriate to, men or women.

illusory correlation the incorrect belief that two events vary together, or the perception that the relationship is strong when little or no actual relationship exists.

implicit attitudes attitudes that people hold on an unconscious level, which may differ from their explicit, conscious attitudes.

stereotype threat a phenomenon that occurs in situations in which the presence of negative stereotypes affects the performance of those to whom the stereotype applies.

validation the process of demonstrating that a psychological test measures what it claims to measure; the procedure that demonstrates the accuracy of a test.

Suggested Readings

Fiske, Susan T. (2012). Managing ambivalent prejudices: Smart-but-cold and warm-but-dumb stereotypes. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639 (1), 33–48. Fiske reviews the research on ambivalent sexism and integrates that concept and its components into the

dynamics of several types of prejudice.

Hoffman, Rose Marie. (2001). The measurement of masculinity and femininity: Historical perspective and implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79 , 472–485. This review traces psychologists’ attempts to measure masculinity and femininity, including a critique of

criticism by others.

70 Gender Stereotypes

Kite, Mary E. (2001). Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do we want women and men to be? In Rhoda Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 215–227). New York: Wiley. Kite reviews gender belief systems, gender stereotypes and their measurement, and what men and women

think of men and women. In addition, she carefully considers the cost of violating these gender stereotypes.

Yong, Ed. (2013). Armor against prejudice. Scientifi c American, 308 (6), 76–80. This article presents an up-to-date and easy-to-read review of the extensive research on stereotype threat.

Suggested Websites

Explore some of the subtleties of stereotyping at Project Implicit (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/). This website is an extension of the research on implicit associations, which reveal stereotypes that people may not recognize that they have. This website allows visitors to take a variety of implicit associations assessments, includ- ing gender-career and gender-science.

Understanding Prejudice is an organization that maintains an extensive website with many resources, includ- ing a section on ambivalent sexism (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq). Take the Ambivalent Sex- ism Inventory and see how subtle sexism can be.

The Let Toys Be Toys-For Girls and Boys campaign (http://www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/), which originated in Great Britain, urges toymakers and children’s book publishers to eliminate the gendering of toys and books as a way to diminish the rampant gender stereotyping in those infl uential materials.

References

Akotia, Charity Sylvia; & Anum, Adote. (2012). The moderating effects of age and education on gender differ- ences on gender role perceptions. Gender & Behaviour, 10 (2), 5022–5043.

Allport, Gordon W. (1954). The nature of prejudice . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Banaji, Mahzarin R.; & Greenwald, Anthony G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people . New York:

Delacorte Press. Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 42 , 155–162. Bereska, Tami M. (2003). The changing boys’ world in the 20th century: Reality and “fi ction”. Journal of Men’s

Studies, 11 , 157–174. Bernard, Jessie. (1981). The good-provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist, 36 , 1–12. Biernat, Monica. (1991). Gender stereotypes and the relationship between masculinity and femininity: A devel-

opmental analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 351–365. Bobo, Lawrence D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism

and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55 , 445–472. Bolger, Diane. (2010). The dynamics of gender in early agricultural societies of the Near East. Signs, 35 (2),

503–531. Bolzendahl, Catherine I.; & Myers, Daniel J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opin-

ion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces, 83 , 759–789. Bonvillain, Nancy. (2000). Women and men: Cultural constructs of gender (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall. Brannon, Robert. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint of manhood and what it’s done for us lately.

In Deborah S. David & Robert Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority (pp. 1–45). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brescoll, Victoria; & LaFrance, Marianne. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 13 (8), 515–520.

Broverman, Inge K.; Vogel, Susan Raymond; Broverman, Donald M.; Clarkson, Frank E.; & Rosenkrantz, Paul S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28 (2), 59–78.

Brown Givens, Sonja M.; & Monahan, Jennifer L. (2005). Priming mammies, Jezebels, and other controlling images: An examination of the infl uence of mediated stereotypes on perceptions of African American women. Media Psychology, 7 , 87–106.

Browne, Beverly A. (1998). Gender stereotypes in advertising on children’s television in the 1990s: A cross- national analysis. Journal of Advertising, 27 , 83–96.

Gender Stereotypes 71

Carothers, Bobbi J.; & Reis, Harry T. (2013). Men and women are from earth: Examining the latent structure of gender. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 104 (2), 385–407.

Chavous, Tabbye M.; Harris, Angel; Rivas, Deborah; Helaire, Lumas; & Green, Laurette. (2004). Racial stereo- types and gender in context: African Americans at predominantly Black and predominantly White colleges. Sex Roles, 51 , 1–16.

Chia, Rosina C.; Moore, Jamie L.; Lam, Ka Nei; Chuang, C. J.; & Cheng, B. S. (1994). Cultural differences in gender role attitudes between Chinese and American students. Sex Roles, 31 , 23–30.

Christopher, Andrew N.; & Mull, Melinda S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30 (2), 223–230.

Cikara, Mina; & Fiske, Susan T. (2009). Warmth, competence, and ambivalent sexism: Vertical assault and col- lateral damage. In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 73–96). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Connell, R. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19 , 829–859. Connelly, Kathleen; & Heesacker, Martin. (2012). Why is benevolent sexism appealing? Associations with sys-

tem justifi cation and life satisfaction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36 (4), 432–443. Constantinople, Anne. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum. Psychological Bulletin,

80 , 389–407. Costa, Paul T., Jr.; Terracciano, Antonio; & McCrae, Robert R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits

across cultures: Robust and surprising fi ndings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 , 322–331. Cuddy, Amy J. C.; Wolf, Elizabeth Baily; Glick, Peter; Crotty, Susan; Chong, Jihye; Norton, Michael I. (2015).

Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109 (4), 622–635.

Deaux, Kay; & Lewis, Laurie. (1984). The structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 991–1004.

Delacollette, Nathalie; Dumont, Muriel; Sarlet, Marie; & Dardenne, Beniot. (2013). Benevolent sexism, men’s advantages and the prescription of warmth to women. Sex Roles, 68 (5/6), 296–310.

Désert, Michel; & Leyens, Jacques-Philippe. (2006). Social comparisons across cultures I: Gender stereotypes and high and low power distance cultures. In Serge Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup relations, and culture (pp. 303–317). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Diekman, Amanda B.; & Eagly, Alice H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 , 1171–1187.

Dixon, Travis L. (2008). Who is the victim here? The psychological effects of overrepresenting White victims and Black perpetrators on television news. Journalism, 9 (5), 582–605.

Dixon, Travis L.; & Azocar, Cristina L. (2007). Priming crime and activating Blackness: Understanding the psychological impact of the overrerpesentation of Blacks as lawbreakers on television news. Journal of Com- munication, 57 (2), 229–253.

Durkin, Kevin; & Nugent, Bradley. (1998). Kindergarten children’s gender-role expectations for television actors. Sex Roles, 38 , 387–402.

Eagly, Alice H.; Mladinic, Antonio; & Otto, Stacey. (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men? An analysis of attitudes, beliefs, and emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15 , 203–216.

Eckes, Thomas. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47 , 99–114.

Edmonds, Ed M.; & Cahoon, Delwin D. (1993). The “new” sexism: Females’ negativism toward males. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8 , 481–487.

Eschholz, Sarah; Bufkin, Jana; & Long, Jenny. (2002). Symbolic reality bites: Women and racial/ethnic minori- ties in modern fi lm. Sociological Spectrum, 22 , 299–334.

Faludi, Susan. (1999). Stiffed: The betrayal of the American man . New York: Morrow. Feingold, Alan. (1998). Gender stereotyping for sociability, dominance, character, and mental health: A meta-

analysis of fi ndings from the bogus stranger paradigm. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124 , 253–270.

72 Gender Stereotypes

Ferrar, Katia E.; Olds, Tim S.; & Walters, Julie L. (2012). All the stereotypes confi rmed: Differences in how Australian boys and girls use their time. Health Education & Behavior, 39 (5), 589–595.

Fiske, Susan T. (2012). Managing ambivalent prejudices: Smart-but-cold and warm-but-dumb stereotypes. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639 (1), 33–48.

Fiske, Susan T.; Cuddy, Amy J. C.; Glick, Peter; & Xu, Jun. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 , 878–902.

Forbes, Chad E.; & Schmader, Toni. (2010). Retraining attitudes and stereotypes to affect motivation and cogni- tive capacity under stereotype threat. J ournal of Personality & Social Psychology, 99 (5), 740–754.

Furnham, Adrian; & Mak, Twiggy. (1999). Sex-role stereotyping in television commercials: A review and com- parison of fourteen studies done on fi ve continents over 25 years. Sex Roles, 41 , 413–438.

Ganahl, Dennis J.; Prinsen, Thomas J.; & Netzley, Sara Baker. (2003). A content analysis of prime time com- mercials: A contextual framework of gender representation. Sex Roles, 49 , 545–551.

Gibbons, Judith L.; Hamby, Beverly A.; & Dennis, Wanda D. (1997). Researching gender-role ideologies inter- nationally and cross-culturally. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21 , 151–170.

Glick, Peter; & Fiske, Susan T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23 , 519–536.

Glick, Peter; & Fiske, Susan T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifi cation for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56 , 109–118.

Glick, Peter; Fiske, Susan T.; Mladinic, Antonio; Saiz, José L.; Abrams, Dominic; Masser, Barbara; . . . López, Wilson López. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 , 763–775.

Glick, Peter; Lameiras, Maria; Fiske, Susan T.; Eckes, Thomas; Masser, Barbara; Volpato, Chiara; . . . Wells, Robin. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 , 713–728. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.86.5.713.

Glick, Peter; & Whitehead, Jessica. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41 (3), 177–185.

Gonzales, Patricia M.; Blanton, Hart; & Williams, Kevin J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double- minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 659–670.

Good, Glenn E.; & Sherrod, Nancy B. (2001). The psychology of men and masculinity: Research status and future directions. In R. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 201–214). New York: Wiley.

Greenwald, Anthony G.; & Banaji, Mahzarin R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102 , 4–27.

Greenwald, Anthony G.; & Farnham, Shelly D. (2000). Using the implicit association test to measure self- esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 , 1022–1038.

Halim, May Ling; Ruble, Diane N.; & Amodio, David M. (2011). From pink frilly dresses to “one of the boys”: A social-cognitive analysis of gender identity development and gender bias. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5 (11), 933–949.

Harwood, Jake; & Anderson, Karen. (2002). The presence and portrayal of social groups of prime-time televi- sion. Communication Reports, 15 , 81–98.

Hegarty, Peter; & Pratto, Felicia. (2004). The differences that norms make: Empiricism, social constructionism, and the interpretation of group differences. Sex Roles, 50 , 445–453.

Hoffman, Rose Marie. (2001). The measurement of masculinity and femininity: Historical perspective and implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79 , 472–485.

Hong, Zuway-R.; Veach, Patricia McCarthy; & Lawrenz, Frances. (2003). An investigation of the gender ste- reotyped thinking of Taiwanese secondary school boys and girls. Sex Roles, 48 , 495–504.

Hort, Barbara E.; Fagot, Beverly I.; & Leinbach, Mary D. (1990). Are people’s notions of maleness more stereo- typically framed than their notions of femaleness? Sex Roles, 23 , 197–212.

Hundhammer, Tanja; & Mussweiler, Thomas. (2012). How sex puts you in gendered shoes: Sexuality-priming leads to gender-based self-perception and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (1), 176–193.

Johns, Michael; Schmader, Toni; & Martens, Andy. (2005). Knowing is half the battle. Psychological Science, 16 , 175–179.

Gender Stereotypes 73

Jost, John T.; & Kay, Aaron C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specifi c and diffuse forms of system justifi cation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 , 498–509.

Kimmel, Michael. (2000). A war against boys? Tikkun, 15 (6), 57–60. Kirnan, Jean Powell; Alfi eri, Julie Ann; Bragger, Jennifer DeNicholis; & Harris, Robert Sean. (2009). An inves-

tigation of stereotype threat in employment tests. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39 (2), 359–388. Knutson, Kristine M.; Mah, Linda; Manly, Charlotte F.; & Grafman, Jordan. (2007). Neural correlates of auto-

matic beliefs about gender and race. Human Brain Mapping, 28 (10), 915–930. Koenig, Anne M.; & Eagly, Alice H. (2005). Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52 ,

489–496. Krendl, Anne C.; Richeson, Jennifer A.; Kelley, William M.; & Heatherton, Todd F. (2008). The negative con-

sequences of threat: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of the neural mechanisms under- lying women’s underperformance in math. Psychological Science, 19 (2), 168–175.

Lasley Barajas, Heide; & Pierce, Jennifer L. (2001). The signifi cance of race and gender in school success among Latinas and Latinos in college. Gender and Society, 15 , 859–878.

Levant, Ronald F.; Good, Glen E.; Cook, Stephen W.; O’Neil, James M.; Smalley, K. Bryant; Owen, Karen; Richmond, Katherine. (2006). The normative male alexithymia scale: Measurement of a gender-linked syn- drome. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7 (4), 212–224.

Levant, Ronald F.; & Richmond, Katherine. (2007). A review of research on masculinity ideologies using the male role norms inventory. Journal of Men’s Studies, 15 (2), 130–146.

Lewin, Miriam. (1984a). “Rather worse than folly?” Psychology measures femininity and masculinity: 1. From Terman and Miles to the Guilfords. In M. Lewin (Ed.), In the shadow of the past: Psychology portrays the sexes (pp. 155–178). New York: Columbia University Press.

Lewin, Miriam. (1984b). Psychology measures femininity and masculinity: 2. From “13 gay men” to the instrumental-expressive distinction. In M. Lewin (Ed.), In the shadow of the past: Psychology portrays the sexes (pp. 179–204). New York: Columbia University Press.

Lewin, Miriam. (1984c). The Victorians, the psychologists, and psychic birth control. In M. Lewin (Ed.), In the shadow of the past: Psychology portrays the sexes (pp. 39–76). New York: Columbia University Press.

Lobel, Thalma E.; Nov-Krispin, Nohar; Schiller, Daniela; Lobel, Orly; & Feldman, Amit. (2004). Gender dis- criminatory behavior during adolescence and young adulthood: A developmental analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33 , 535–546.

Löckenhoff, Corinna E.; Chan, Wayne; McCrae, Robert R.; De Fruyt, Filip; Jussim, Lee; De Bolle, Marleen; . . . Terraciano, Antonio. (2014). Gender stereotypes of personality: Universal and accurate? Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 45 (5), 675–694.

Loo, Robert; & Thorpe, Karran. (1998). Attitudes toward women’s roles in society: A replication after 20 years. Sex Roles, 39 , 903–912.

Lopez-Zafra, Esther; & Garcia-Retamero, Rocio. (2012). Do gender stereotypes change? The dynamic of gender stereotypes in Spain. Journal of Gender Studies, 21 (2), 169–183.

Maccoby, Eleanor E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24 , 755–765. Macrae, C. Neil; & Bodenhausen, Galen V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others.

Annual Review of Psychology, 51 , 93–120. Marler, Joan. (2006). The myth of universal patriarchy: A critical response to Cynthia Eller’s myth of matriarchal

prehistory. Feminist Theology, 14 , 163–187. Martin, Carol Lynn; & Halverson, Charles F., Jr. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex-typing and ste-

reotyping in children. Child Development, 52 , 1119–1134. Martin, Carol Lynn; & Little, Jane K. (1990). The relation of gender understanding to children’s sex-typed

preferences and gender stereotypes. Child Development, 61 , 1427–1439. Martin, Carol Lynn; & Ruble, Diane. (2004). Children’s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on

gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 , 67–70. Martin, Carol Lynn; Wood, Carolyn H.; & Little, Jane K. (1990). The development of gender stereotype com-

ponents. Child Development, 61 , 1891–1904. McKown, Clark; & Weinstein, Rhona S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype conscious-

ness in middle childhood. Child Development, 74 , 498–515. Meehan, Anita M.; & Janik, Leann M. (1990). Illusory correlation and the maintenance of sex role stereotypes

in children. Sex Roles, 22 , 83–95.

74 Gender Stereotypes

Miller, Cindy; Lurye, Leah; Zosuls, Kristina; & Ruble, Diane. (2009). Accessibility of gender stereotype domains: Developmental and gender differences in children. Sex Roles, 60 (11/12), 870–881.

Mitchell, Jason P.; Ames, Daniel L.; Jenkins, Adrianna C.; & Banaji, Mahzarin R. (2009). Neural correlates of stereotype application. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21 (3), 594–604.

Monk-Turner, Elizabeth; Heiserman, Mary; Johnson, Crystle; Cotton, Vanity; & Jackson, Manny. (2010). The portrayal of racial minorities on prime time television: A replication of the Mastro and Greenberg study a decade later. Studies in Popular Culture, 32 (2), 101–114.

Murphy, Sheila T. (1998). The impact of factual versus fi ctional media portrayals on cultural stereotypes. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 560 , 165–178.

Nassif, Atif; & Gunter, Barrie. (2008). Gender representation in television advertisements in Britain and Saudi Arabia. Sex Roles, 58 (11/12), 752–760.

Nguyen, Hannah-Hanh D.; & Ryan, Ann Marie. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (6), 1314–1334.

Nielsen, Laura Beth. (2002). Subtle, pervasive, harmful: Racist and sexist remarks in public as hate speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58 , 265–280.

Nisbett, Richard E. (2003). The geography of thought . New York: Free Press. Perrin, Paul B.; Heesacker, Martin; & Shrivastav, Rahul. (2008). Removing the tinted spectacles: Accurate client

emotionality assessment despite therapists’ gender stereotypes. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 27 (7), 711–733.

Pleck, Joseph H. (1981). The myth of masculinity . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pleck, Joseph H. (1984). The theory of male sex role identity: Its rise and fall, 1936 to the present. In M. Lewin

(Ed.), In the shadow of the past: Psychology portrays the sexes (pp. 205–225). New York: Columbia University Press. Pleck, Joseph H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A

new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York: Basic Books. Powlishta, Kimberly K. (2000). The effect of target age on the activation of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 42 ,

271–282. Pratto, Felicia; Sidanius, Jim; & Levin, Shana. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup

relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17 , 271–320. Prentice, Deborah A.; & Carranza, Erica. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed

to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26 , 269–281.

Pugsley, Peter C. (2010). Singapore FHM: State values and the construction of Singaporean masculinity in a syndicated men’s magazine. Asian Studies Review, 34 (2), 171–190.

Read, Jen’nan Ghazal. (2003). The sources of gender role attitudes among Christian and Muslim Arab-American women. Sociology of Religion, 64 , 207–222.

Ricciardelli, Lina A.; & Williams, Robert J. (1995). Desirable and undesirable gender traits in three behavioral domains. Sex Roles, 33 , 637–655.

Robertson, John M.; Johnson, Ann L.; Benton, Stephen L.; Janey, Bradley A.; Cabral, Jennifer; & Woodford, Joyce A. (2002). What’s in a picture? Comparing gender constructs of younger and older adults. Journal of Men’s Studies, 11 (1), 1–27.

Roets, Ame; Van Hiel, Alain; & Dhont, Kristof. (2012). Is sexism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition perspective on men’s and women’s sexist attitudes toward own and other gender. European Journal of Personal- ity, 26 (3), 350–359.

Rosenkrantz, Paul; Vogel, Susan; Bee, Helen; Broverman, Inge; & Broverman, Donald M. (1968). Sex-role stereotypes and self-concepts in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32 , 287–295.

Rosin, Hanna. (2010). The end of men. Atlantic Monthly, 306 (1), 56–72. Rudman, Laurie A.; Greenwald, Anthony G.; & McGhee, Debbie E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evalua-

tive implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 27 , 1164–1178.

Salzman, Philip C. (1999). Is inequality universal? Current Anthropology, 40 , 31–61. Schmader, Toni. (2010). Stereotype threat deconstructed. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 (1),

14–18. Schmader, Toni; Johns, Michael; & Barquissau, Marchelle. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences:

The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex Roles, 50 , 835–850.

Gender Stereotypes 75

Sell, Ingrid M. (2004). Third gender: A qualitative study of the experience of individuals who identify as being neither man nor women. Psychotherapy Patient, 13 (1/2), 131–145.

Settles, Isis H.; Pratt-Hyatt, Jennifer S.; & Buchanan, NiCole T. (2008). Through the lens of race: Black and White women’s perceptions of womanhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32 (4), 454–468.

Sherman, Jeffrey W.; Kruschke, John K.; Sherman, Steven J.; Percy, Elise J.; Petrocelli, John V.; & Conrey, Fred- erica R. (2009). Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category accentuation and illusory correlation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (2), 305–323.

Sibley, Chris G.; Overall, Nichola C.; & Duckitt, John. (2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 57 (9/10), 743–754.

Sibley, Chris G.; Wilson, Marc S.; & Duckitt, John. (2007). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin, 33 (2), 160–172.

Sidanius, Jim; Pratto, Felicia; & Bobo, Lawrence. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psy- chology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 , 998–1011.

Smiler, Andrew P.; & Gelman, Susan. (2008). Determinants of gender essentialism in college students. Sex Roles, 58 (11/12), 864–874.

Smith, Jessi L.; & White, Paul H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nul- lifi ed stereotypes on mathematical performance: It’s not just a woman’s issue. Sex Roles, 47 , 179–191.

Smith, Stacy L.; Choueiti, Marc; Scofi eld, Elizabeth; & Pieper, Katherine. (2013). Gender inequality in 500 popu- lar fi lms: Examining on-screen portrayals and behind-the-scenes employment patterns in motion pictures released between 2007–2012 . Anneberg School for Communication & Journalism. Retrieved September 1, 2015, from http://annenberg.usc.edu/pages/~/media/MDSCI/Gender_Inequality_in_500_Popular_Films_-_ Smith_2013.ashx

Sommers, Christina Hoff. (2000, May). The war against boys. Atlantic Monthly, 285 , 59–74. Spence, Janet T.; & Hahn, Eugene D. (1997). The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in college

students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21 , 17–34. Spence, Janet T.; & Helmreich, Robert. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: The psychological dimensions, corre-

lates, and antecedents . Austin: University of Texas Press. Spence, Janet T.; Helmreich, Robert; & Stapp, Joy. (1974). The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of

sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4 , 43 (Ms. no. 617).

Steele, Claude M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52 , 613–629.

Stephan, Cookie White; Stephan, Walter C.; Demitrakis, Katherine M.; Yamada, Ann Marie; & Clason, Dennis L. (2000). Women’s attitudes toward men: An integrated threat theory approach. Psychology of Women Quar- terly, 24 , 63–73.

Strough, JoNell; Leszczynski, Jennifer Pickard; Neely, Tara L.; Flinn, Jennifer A.; & Margrett, Jennifer. (2007). From adolescence to later adulthood: Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles, 57 , 385–396.

Sugihara, Yoko; & Katsurada, Emiko. (2002). Gender role development in Japanese culture: Diminishing gender role differences in a contemporary society. Sex Roles, 47 , 443–452.

Susskind, Joshua E. (2003). Children’s perception of gender-based illusory correlations: Enhancing preexisting relationships between gender and behavior. Sex Roles, 48 , 483–494.

Sweeting, Helen; Bhaskar, Abita; Benzeval, Michaela; Popham, Frank; & Hunt, Kate. (2014). Changing gender roles and attitudes and their implications for well-being around the new millennium. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49 (5), 791–809.

Tager, David D.; & Good, Glenn E. (2005). Italian and American masculinities: A comparison of masculine gender role norms. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6 , 264–274.

Tan, Yue; Shaw, Ping; Cheng, Hong; & Kim, Kwangmi Ko. (2013). The construction of masculinity: A cross- cultural analysis of men’s lifestyle magazine advertisements. Sex Roles , 69 (5/6), 237–249.

Thoman, Dustin B.; Smith, Jessi L.; Brown, Elizabeth R.; Chase, Justin; & Lee, Joo Young K. (2013). Beyond performance: A motivational experiences model of stereotype threat. Educational Psychology Review, 25 (2), 211–243.

Todd, Douglas. (2013, June 27). Gender stereotypes don’t die easily. Vancouver Sun . Retrieved August 28, 2015, from http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/Gender+stereotypes+easily/8588944/story.html

76 Gender Stereotypes

Tomasetto, Carlo; & Appoloni, Sara. (2013). A lesson not to be learned? Understanding stereotype threat does not protect women from stereotype threat. Social Psychology of Education, 16 (2), 199–213.

Trautner, Hanns M.; Ruble, Diane N.; Cyphers, Lisa; Kirsten, Barbara; Behrendt, Regina; & Hartmann, Petra. (2005). Rigidity and fl exibility of gender stereotypes in childhood: Developmental or differential? Infant and Child Development, 14 , 365–381.

Twenge, Jean M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21 , 35–51. Unger, Rhoda K. (1995). Conclusion: Cultural diversity and the future of feminist psychology. In H. Landrine

(Ed.), Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology (pp. 413–431). Washington, DC: American Psychologi- cal Association.

Valls-Fernández, Federico; & Martínez-Vincente, José Manuels. (2007). Gender stereotypes in Spanish television commercials. Sex Roles, 56 (9/10), 691–699.

Vandello, Joseph A.; Bosson, Jennifer K.; Cohen, Cov; Burnaford, Rochelle M.; & Weaver, Jonathan, R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (6), 1325–1339.

van Well, Sonja; Kolk, Annemarie M.; & Oei, Nicole Y. L. (2007). Direct and indirect assessment of gender role identifi cation. Sex Roles, 56 (9/10), 617–628.

Viki, G. Tendayi; Abrams, Dominic; & Hutchinson, Paul. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49 , 533–537.

Wade, M. Leslie; & Brewer, Marilynn B. (2006). The structure of female subgroups: An exploration of ambiva- lent stereotypes. Sex Roles, 54 (11/12), 753–765.

Ward, L. Monique; & Harrison, Kristen. (2005). The impact of media use on girls’ beliefs about gender roles, their bodies, and sexual relationships: A research synthesis. In E. Cole & J. H. Daniel (Eds.), Featuring females: Feminist analyses of media (pp. 3–23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Welter, Barbara. (1978). The cult of true womanhood, 1820–1860. In Michael Gordon (Ed.), The American family in social-historical perspective (2nd ed., pp. 313–333). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

West, Candace; & Zimmerman, Don H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1 , 125–151. Williams, John E.; & Best, Deborah L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study (Rev. ed.). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage. Williams, John E.; Satterwhite, Robert C.; & Best, Deborah L. (1999). Pancultural gender stereotypes revisited:

The fi ve factor model. Sex Roles, 40 , 513–526. Wister, Joseph; Stubbs, Margaret; & Shipman, Chaquica. (2013). Mentioning menstruation: A stereotype threat

that diminishes cognition? Sex Roles, 68 (1/2), 19–31. Woodhill, Brenda Mae; & Samuels, Curtis A. (2003). Positive and negative androgyny and their relationship

with psychological health and well-being. Sex Roles, 48 , 555–565. Wraga, Maryjane; Helt, Molly; Jacobs, Emily; & Sullivan, Kerry. (2007). Neural basis of stereotype-induced

shifts in women’s mental rotation performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2 (1), 12–19. Zosuls, Kristina M.; Ruble, Diane N.; Tamis-LeMonda, Catherine S.; Shrout, Patrick E.; Bomstein, Marc H.; &

Greulich, Faith K. (2009). The acquisition of gender labels in infancy: Implications for gender-typed play. Developmental Psychology, 45 (3), 688–701.

Headline: “Venus and Mars Collide,” New Scientist, March 5, 2011

John Gray’s (1992) metaphor of women from Venus and men from Mars encouraged people to think that differences between the sexes are astronomical. Those differences should be most obvious in biology; chromosomes and hormones should produce clear differences in building female and male bodies. But as Laura Spinney’s (2011) headline article pointed out, some of those differences are not as clear as most people imagine.

Spinney consulted gender researchers in physiology and psychology, some of whom expressed frustration with media reports of their fi ndings, which tend to focus on the biological bases of all gender differences. These researchers know that this representation is wrong: A growing body of research shows a complex interaction of biological and social infl uences in molding body and behavior. In addition, researchers complained that media reporting fails to highlight the biological gender differences that are well established, leaving the impression that social factors determine all behavioral differences between the sexes. This impression is also incorrect. The complex interaction of biological and social infl uences that affects bodies also applies to behavior. That complexity yields important questions: What roles do hormones and chromosomes play in the behavior of men and women? How do these biological factors interact with environment to produce gender differences and similarities?

This chapter begins to answer these questions with an exploration of the contribution of biology—chromosomes and hormones—on human development from conception through- out prenatal development and again during puberty. Additional questions about the infl u- ence of hormones appear in an examination of individuals who fail to develop according to a clear female or male pattern of physiology. Finally, this chapter examines the role of hormones in adult behavior, including an examination of PMS and the role of testosterone in behavior.

The Endocrine System and Steroid Hormones

Hormones are substances released from endocrine glands to circulate throughout the body in the bloodstream. Receptors on various organs are sensitive to specifi c hormones, which produce many different actions throughout the body. Although the body contains many endocrine glands that secrete a variety of hormones, steroid hormones are the ones that relate to reproduction and differences between the sexes. The reproductive organs, the ovaries and testes, are the gonads . These organs are obviously among the physical characteristics differentiating the sexes and are also essential to reproduction, but the ovaries and testes are not the only endocrine glands that are important for sexual development and functioning. Two brain structures, the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland, begin a cascade of hormone

Hormones and Chromosomes 4

78 Hormones and Chromosomes

release that results in the regulation of hormone release by the gonads. Figure 4.1 summarizes the action of these glands and hormones.

Gonadal hormones are called steroid hormones and consist of two main classes, andro- gens and estrogens . Although people tend to think of androgens as male hormones and estrogens as female hormones, that belief is inaccurate—each sex produces both types of hormones. The most common of the androgens is testosterone , and the most common of the estrogens is estradiol . Men typically produce a greater proportion of androgens than estrogens, and women typically produce a greater portion of estrogens than androgens. The gonads also secrete a third type of hormone, the progestins . The most common progestin is progesterone, which plays a role in preparing a woman’s body for pregnancy. Men also secrete progesterone, which has a variety of regulatory functions in the endocrine system (Oettel & Mukhopadhyay, 2004).

The gonads are not the only glands that produce steroid hormones; the adrenal glands also produce small amounts of both classes of steroid hormone. These hormones are important in developing the differences between male and female.

Figure 4.1 A Summary Model of the Regulation of Gonadal Hormones

Source: From Biopsychology by John Pinel, 2nd ed., ©1993. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, New York.

Hormones and Chromosomes 79

Sexual Differentiation

Humans (and most other animals) are sexually dimorphic; that is, they come in two different physical versions—female and male. This sexual dimorphism is the result of development that begins with conception and ends at puberty, resulting in men and women who are capable of sexual reproduction.

Chromosomes

The development of sexual differences starts at conception—the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell. Most cells in the human body contain 23 pairs of chromosomes, but ova and sperm carry half that amount of chromosomal material. The combination of the two into the fertilized ovum furnishes the full amount of genetic material, with half coming from the mother’s ovum and half from the father’s sperm.

Of the 23 pairs of human chromosomes, pair number 23 is the one that is critical. Although most chromosomes are X shaped, only those in pair 23 are called X chromo- somes . An individual who inherits two of these X chromosomes (one X from the mother and the other X from the father) will have the genetic endowment to develop according to the female pattern. Individuals who inherit one X and one Y chromosome (the X from the mother and the Y from the father) will have the genetic information to develop according to the male pattern. Therefore, the normal female pattern is XX in chromosome pair 23, and the normal male pattern is XY.

The presence of the XY chromosome constellation is only the fi rst factor that produces male physiology, and its presence is not suffi cient to make a male. Other confi gurations are possible for pair 23, but those patterns are considered abnormalities, discussed later, in the section titled “Variations in Sexual Development.”

Prenatal Development of Male and Female Physiology

After conception, the fertilized ovum starts to grow, fi rst by dividing into two cells, then four, and so on. The ball of cells becomes larger and starts to differentiate, forming the basis for different structures and organs. Within the fi rst 6 weeks of prenatal development, no differ- ence exists between male and female embryos, even in their gonads. Both the embryos with the XX pattern and those with the XY pattern have the same structures, and this replication signifi es that both types of embryos have the potential to develop into individuals who look like and have the internal reproductive organs of either boys or girls.

The Reproductive Organs

Both male and female embryos have a Wolffi an system , which has the capacity to develop into the male internal reproductive system, and a Müllerian system , which has the capacity to develop into the female internal reproductive system. About six weeks after conception, two processes typically begin in fetuses with the XY chromosome pattern to further the developing male pattern.

The fi rst involves the production of androgens. A gene on the Y chromosome prompts the development of fetal testes, which produce androgens (Hiort, Thyen, & Holterhus, 2005). The presence of androgens stimulates the development of the Wolffi an system, which further increases production of testosterone and stimulates development of the male pattern. The second process that prompts male development is the production of Müllerian-inhibiting substance, which causes the Müllerian system to degenerate. Therefore, one type of secre- tion prompts the Wolffi an system to develop into the male internal reproductive organs

80 Hormones and Chromosomes

(masculinization), and the other causes the female Müllerian system to degenerate (defemi- nization). These actions result in male internal reproductive organs in the fetus. Figure 4.2 shows how the male reproductive system develops from the Wolffi an system, creating testes, vas deferens, and seminal vesicles. This fi gure also illustrates how both male and female reproductive structures originate from the same prenatal structures.

Differentiation of the ovaries also occurs through the action of genes (Hiort et al., 2005), but the fetal ovaries produce few estrogens, suggesting that no surge of fetal hormones is necessary to produce ovaries. In female embryos, the Wolffi an system degenerates and the Müllerian system develops, resulting in ovaries, uterus, Fallopian tubes, and the upper part of the vagina. Figure 4.2 also shows how the female reproductive system develops from the Müllerian system.

Figure 4.2 Development of Internal Reproductive Systems

Source: From Biopsychology by John Pinel, 2nd ed., ©1993. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, New York.

Hormones and Chromosomes 81

Until the ninth week after conception, the external genitalia of male and female fetuses are also identical, with the potential to develop into either. The structures that will become the penis and scrotum in males and the clitoris, outer and inner labia, and vaginal opening in females have not yet differentiated but begin to do so after that time. Again, the presence of androgens, especially testosterone, is important. Figure 4.3 shows the development of the external genitalia for both the male and female patterns.

Prenatal production of androgens generates the male pattern, but a surge of estrogens does not seem to be essential to development of the female pattern. Until recently, development

Figure 4.3 Development of Male and Female External Genitalia

Source: From Biopsychology by John Pinel, 2nd ed., ©1993. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, New York.

82 Hormones and Chromosomes

of the female pattern was often described as a “default” option, but an update (Parma et al., 2006) pointed out that this view is wrong. For example, a gene on chromosome 1 produces a protein that is essential to the development of ovaries. Indeed, genes on the X, Y, and other chromosomes are important in the development of male and female reproductive organs. Efforts to formulate a simple view of chromosomal sex have been inaccurate and misleading (Richardson, 2012). The same warning applies to the role of hormones: A simple view will never be accurate.

The Nervous System

Several possibilities exist for hormones to infl uence the nervous system and thus to affect brain organization during prenatal development and brain functioning through the lifes- pan. This hypothesis has gone from an intriguing possibility to an underlying assumption of much of the neuroscience research on sex differences (Jordan-Young & Rumiati, 2012). Many brain structures contain receptors that are sensitive to androgens and estrogens, creat- ing the possibility for infl uence not just during prenatal development but also later in the lifespan, especially during puberty (Ahmed et al., 2008; Peper et al., 2009). This latter pos- sibility has begun to switch the focus of this line of research, suggesting that sex differences in the brain and nervous system are not “hard-wired” by exposure to prenatal hormones. Rather, hormone exposure later in life may be more infl uential (Jordan-Young & Rumiati, 2012; Wade, 2013).

Another widely researched possibility for sex differences in the brain comes from dif- ferences between the two cerebral hemispheres (Springer & Deutsch, 1998; Wade, 2013). Figure 4.4 presents a drawing of the brain. The concept of lateralization holds that the left and right hemispheres are each specialized for different functions; the left hemisphere is spe- cialized for language and speech, and the right hemisphere for spatial abilities. A great deal

Figure 4.4 Cerebral Commissures and the Hemispheres of the Human Brain

Source: From Biopsychology by John Pinel, 2nd ed., ©1993. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, New York.

Hormones and Chromosomes 83

of research and theory have explored gender differences in the lateralization of the cerebral hemispheres, but a meta-analysis (Sommer, Aleman, Bouma, & Kahn, 2004) and a critical review (Wallentin, 2009) indicated that lateralization of function does not differ signifi cantly for women and men.

The evidence for sexual dimorphism in the brain is strongest for a small section of the hypothalamus called the sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN). This structure is larger in male rats and in men than in female rats and in women (Gorski, 1987; Swaab & Fliers, 1985). Although its function is not well understood, that function may be related to sexual behavior or gender identity (Garcia-Falgueras & Swaab, 2008). This nucleus is very sensitive to testosterone and estrogen, so the presence or absence of these hormones infl uences its development. In humans, gender differences in this structure do not exist at birth but develop between birth and ages 2 to 4 years (Swaab, Gooren, & Hofman, 1995). Otherwise, the differences in structure between female and male brains are small. Table 4.1 summarizes the results of studies on structural differences between women’s and men’s brains.

Gonadal, hormonal, genital, and brain organization are not suffi cient to produce sexually interested and sexually active people capable of reproduction. Such changes depend on the activating effects of hormones during puberty.

Changes during Puberty

The levels of circulating hormones are low during infancy and childhood, but these levels increase before puberty, the onset of sexual maturity. The changes that occur during this period include not only fertility but also the characteristic adolescent growth spurt and the development of secondary sex characteristics. These characteristics constitute the differ- ences between male and female bodies other than reproductive ones (see Figure 4.5 ). Both sexes experience the growth of body and pubic hair and the appearance of acne. Young men experience the growth of facial hair, larynx enlargement, hairline recession, and muscle development, whereas young women experience breast development, rounding of body contours, and menarche—the beginning of menstruation. All of these changes are prompted by changes in the release of hormones.

The adolescent growth spurt is the result of muscle and bone growth in response to increased release of growth hormone by the pituitary. Increased production of tropic hor- mones by the pituitary act on the adrenal glands, and the gonads increases the production of gonadal and adrenal hormones. These hormones stimulate the gonads to increase their pro- duction of estrogens and androgens. Increased circulation of these gonadal hormones results

Table 4.1 Summary of Brain Differences between Men and Women

Structure Difference

Cerebral hemispheres Men may be more lateralized than women for language and spatial functions

Sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN) of hypothalamus SDN in men is 2.5 times larger than in women

Splenium of corpus callosum Early studies indicated larger and more bulbous splenium in women; later studies found an interaction with age and gender

Anterior commissure Evidence for sexual dimorphism is sketchy

Massa intermedia of the thalamus Evidence for sexual dimorphism is sketchy

84 Hormones and Chromosomes

in maturation of the genitals, that is, the development of fertility as well as the development of secondary sex characteristics.

In adolescent boys and adult men, the production of androgens is proportionately higher than their production of estrogens; in adolescent girls and in women, the production of estrogens is proportionately higher than their production of androgens. The changes in repro- ductive and secondary sex characteristics associated with puberty occur through the action of estrogens and androgens. In girls, these changes produce cyclic variations in hormone levels that are associated with the maturation and release of an ovum approximately every month. If a sperm fertilizes this ovum, and the fertilized ovum implants in the uterus, pregnancy occurs. If no fertilization occurs, the lining of the uterus is shed in menstruation, and the process will reoccur. In boys, the changes during puberty produce the growth of the penis and maturation of the internal reproductive system, which will allow them to produce and ejaculate sperm.

Again, it would be inaccurate to think of androgens as “male” hormones and estrogens as “female” hormones. An example of the infl uence of one hormone on both sexes is the

Figure 4.5 Changes Occurring in Males and Females during Puberty

Source: From Biopsychology by John Pinel, 2nd ed., ©1993. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, New York.

Hormones and Chromosomes 85

growth of pubic and underarm hair; the androgen produced by both boys and girls results in the growth of pubic and underarm hair in both.

Hormones are also important for the development of sexual interest in humans (Bancroft, 2002), but sexual interest usually precedes puberty (Hyde & Jaffee, 2000). Around age 10, many children begin to show great curiosity (and perhaps even feelings) concerning sex. One possible mechanism for this development is the maturation of the adrenal glands, which occurs at this time and produce both androgens and estrogens. Nevertheless, people who do not undergo puberty generally fail to develop much interest in sexual activity (Meyer- Bahlburg, 1980), so hormonal events during preadolescence and puberty may form a cascade of circumstances crucial for the development of sexual interest. The development of sexual interest and fertility sets the stage for adult fertility and thus reproduction.

Changes during Adulthood

Hormones are clearly important for sexual activity but more important in some animals than others. In rats, for example, the cyclic production of hormones by the females relates to sexual receptivity, and male rats respond to that receptivity. Hormone levels are also important for the development and maintenance of sexual interest. Rats that have their gonads removed before puberty fail to develop any interest in sexual activity. If their gonads are removed after puberty, their sexual interest fades.

In humans, the relationship between hormonal levels and sexual interest is less clear-cut. However, some fl uctuations in sexual desire in women show a relationship to periods of fer- tility, but these effects are small (Giles, 2008). In addition, the normal range of sex hormones varies substantially within men and within women, creating a less than clear relationship between hormone levels and sexual interest. Testosterone seems to be more important for sexual interest than the estrogens, even for women (Giles, 2008), but adults produce both estrogens and androgens, including testosterone.

The story is even more complex concerning the maintenance of sexual activity in humans who experience a decline of hormone levels. Such declines can occur for a number of reasons, including removal of the gonads or decreased hormone production associated with aging. For men, removal of the testes tends to produce a decrease in sexual activity, but the extent and rate of decrease varies enormously from person to person (Bancroft, 2002). Some men experience the signifi cant and rapid loss of either ability to get erections or ability to ejaculate or both. Other men experience a slowly decreasing interest in sexual activity, followed by diffi culty in ejaculating, and then by a loss of ability to achieve erections. Few men remain unaffected by loss of androgens, but the popularity of drugs for erectile problems are strong evidence that sexual interest declines more slowly than sexual performance. Replacement testosterone can reverse the decline in sexual interest and possibly in sexual performance. Testosterone replacement therapy increased with the creation of the testosterone patch and testosterone gel, and its short-term effects are clear (Sullivan, 2003), but safety concerns have arisen (Bassil, Alkaade, & Morley, 2009).

Women’s sexual interest seems less affected by the removal of ovaries. Indeed, some women report increased sexual motivation after such surgery. The most likely explanation is that the hormones important for the maintenance of sexual interest in women are androgens, and so a decrease in estrogen is not critical. Adrenal androgens may be suffi cient to maintain sexual interest. Another possibility is that human sexuality is infl uenced by learned and sexual factors as well as hormones, and thus drastic physical changes in sexually mature adults are mediated by experience and expectation.

Table 4.2 summarizes sexual development, beginning with the critically important pre- natal period. For a clear pronouncement of “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl,” a great many prenatal

86 Hormones and Chromosomes

events must occur in a coordinated sequence. When this complex process fails to follow the typical sequence, the result is a baby whose sex may be ambiguous, combining characteristics of male and female. These cases are rather rare, but their existence is revealing because they provide a means of understanding the necessary elements of typical development.

Variations in Sexual Development

A number of events relating to the development of the reproductive system can, but usually do not, vary from the typical patterns during prenatal development. Problems can originate at several points, beginning before conception with the formation of the mother’s ovum or the father’s sperm. Yet other problems can arise when the prenatal hormones are not consistent with the genetic confi guration of the developing fetus. These variations provide contrasts to typical development and highlight the complexities of defi ning male and female.

Beginning with the single cell that is the fertilized ovum, males differ from females in their chromosomes, but the presence of the XX or XY sex chromosome pattern does not guarantee the development of a normal boy or girl. Variations sometimes occur in the assortment of chromosomes carried by the sperm and ova. Instead of the typical 23, sometimes chromo- somes are missing, or extra ones appear. Several types of chromosomal variations have direct effects on the development of the internal reproductive system, the external genitalia, or both, with resulting hormonal differences.

Variations in Number of Sex Chromosomes

Variations from the typical number of sex chromosomes produce syndromes that often affect reproductive organs, genitalia, hormone production, fertility, growth, cognitive abilities, and

Table 4.2 Effects of Sex Hormones over the Lifespan

Age Span Results of Hormone Action Effects for Men Effects for Women

During Prenatal Development

Development of internal and external genitalia

6 weeks after conception Embryos develop testes, which produce androgens; Wolffi an system develops; Müllerian system deteriorates

Embryos do not produce androgens; Müllerian system develops; Wolffi an system deteriorates

3–4 months into gestation

Androgens prompt development of male pattern external genitalia

Without androgens, external genitalia develop the female pattern

During Puberty Development of secondary sex characteristics; development of sexual interest; beginning of fertility

Growth of body and pubic hair; appearance of acne; larynx enlargement; hairline recession; muscle enlargement

Growth of body and pubic hair; appearance of acne; breast development; rounding body contours; beginning menstruation

During Young Adulthood

Fertility and Reproduction Sperm production depends on specifi c hormone action

Maturing and releasing ova and implantation of fertilized ova depend on specifi c hormone action

During Older Adulthood

Hormone production falls Lower testosterone decreases but does not end fertility and affects erectile ability

Menopause ends fertility; lower hormone production affects sexual interest

Hormones and Chromosomes 87

other aspects of development. Turner syndrome (or Turner’s syndrome ) occurs when the fertilized ovum has only one chromosome of pair 23—that is, one X. This syndrome is usu- ally described as X0, where the zero stands for the missing chromosome (Ranke & Saenger, 2001). Individuals with Turner syndrome appear female at birth, because their external geni- tals develop according to the female pattern. Their prenatal development begins normally, but their Müllerian systems degenerate, producing individuals with no functioning ovaries, and their brains vary in small ways from those of other women (Cutter et al., 2006). At birth the appearance of the external genitalia prompts identifi cation as female, but without ovaries, they produce no estrogens, so they do not undergo puberty or produce ova. With hormone supplements, they appear female. They do not produce ova, but donated ova and medical assistance can allow them to bear children.

Another mistake in chromosome number is the presence of an extra X chromosome— the XXX confi guration (Harmon, Bender, Linden, & Robinson, 1998). Individuals with the XXX confi guration develop prenatally as female, but women with the XXX pattern may have normal intelligence or may have developmental disabilities that affect cognitive ability. They also may have problems that affect their reproductive ability, including menstrual irregularities or amenorrhea (absence of menstrual periods) that results in sterility, but they may not. Women with this chromosomal pattern have been known to have children. Individuals with the XXXX pattern and XXXXX pattern have also been identifi ed (Linden, Bender, & Robinson, 1995). These individuals tend to have more severe developmental problems and are very likely to be seriously develop- mentally disabled as well as sterile.

Klinefelter syndrome is characterized by the XXY confi guration, and this variation is the most common of the sex chromosome abnormalities, occurring in 1 case per 1,000 male births (Wattendorf & Muenke, 2005). Individuals with Klinefelter syndrome have male internal and external genitalia, but their testes are small and usually cannot produce sperm, resulting in sterility. They may also fail to develop the body shape typical of men; during puberty, they may develop breasts and wider hips. Alternatively, these individuals may expe- rience much less serious symptoms, with only slight variations from the characteristic male body shape (Richardson, 2012). Like other people with extra chromosomal material, indi- viduals with Klinefelter syndrome have an increased chance of developmental disabilities. Other confi gurations of chromosomes are similar to Klinefelter syndrome, including XXXY and XXXXY, which produce more severe problems in the skeletal and reproductive systems as well as severe developmental disabilities.

The XYY chromosome pattern was the subject of a great deal of publicity during the 1960s. Articles appeared linking the XYY gene pattern to “aggressive tendencies” and “crimi- nality” (Hubbard & Wald, 1993). These sensational reports were largely unfounded; the early association of XYY with imprisonment was based on faulty research. The large majority of XYY men are not aggressive or criminal. They tend to be very tall and may be more likely to be in prison than men with the XY chromosome pattern (Witkin et al., 1976). However, their offenses were no more likely to be violent than other inmates. Thus, the presence of an extra Y chromosome produces an increased risk for developmental disabilities but not a tendency to higher levels of aggression.

In summary, missing or extra sex chromosomes often affect the development of the sexual organs and more often affect other areas of development, especially cognitive abilities. Both missing chromosomes (Turner syndrome) and extra chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome) result in sterility, but individuals with the XXX pattern and the XYY pattern may be fertile. This extra chromosomal material does not make individuals “hypermasculine” or “superfemi- nine.” Indeed, extra chromosomes produce developmental problems rather than enhance- ments. Table 4.3 summarizes characteristics of these variations in number of sex chromosomes.

88 Hormones and Chromosomes

Problems Related to Prenatal Hormone Exposure

The presence of the XY chromosome pattern is not necessary (or suffi cient) for the develop- ment of male internal or external genitalia; the hormone testosterone is the key to these devel- opments. Therefore, a fetus that is genetically female (XX pattern) can be masculinized by the addition of testosterone during the period of the third and fourth months of prenatal develop- ment. Typically, female fetuses do not produce testosterone during this important period, but prenatal exposure to androgens may occur, either through the action of tumors in the adrenal gland or through the pregnant woman’s inadvertent or intentional exposure to androgens.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH, also called adrenogenital syndrome ) occurs when the adrenal gland decreases its production of the hormone cortisol, which prompts an increase in adrenal androgens. For a male fetus, relatively few problems occur; for a boy, increased androgen production accelerates the onset of puberty. For a developing female fetus, however, the presence of excessive androgens produces masculinization of the exter- nal genitalia during prenatal development. The excess androgens occur too late to affect the internal genitals, which are usually normal, but these girls are born with a clitoris that may look very much like a small penis. If their genitals appear atypical at birth, physicians often recommend to parents surgical intervention to alter the genitals toward a more typical female appearance. This procedure has become very controversial (Cohen-Kettenis, 2005b; Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 2004), partly because the surgery may damage nerves to the clitoris, producing permanent problems in sexual responsiveness.

These girls interest researchers because their brains were exposed to androgens during prenatal development, which may affect their behavior, gender identity, and even sexual orientation. However, hormone exposure is not their only difference—the early medical and parental attention focused on their genitals makes these girls different from others. Research has suggested that CAH is associated with play activities more typical of boys than girls; that is, these girls are more likely to be “tomboys” (Berenbaum, 2006; Hines, Brook, & Conway, 2004). As adults, women affected by CAH are more likely than other women to show reduced heterosexual interest, but as girls (Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 2004) and as women (Berenbaum, 2006), those affected by CAH showed neither gender confusion nor dissatisfac- tion. Indeed, the majority of women affected by CAH become heterosexual women with no doubts about their female gender identity.

Androgen insensitivity syndrome occurs in XY male fetuses whose body cells are insensitive to androgens. The androgens produced by their fetal testes will not induce masculinization because the androgen receptors in their bodies do not function nor- mally (Mazur, 2005; Simpson, 2001). These fetuses will develop as though no androgens were present, and at birth the XY baby will appear to be a girl. The internal genita- lia are not female, however, because the presence of the Y chromosome prompted the development of testes (that remain within the abdominal cavity) and the production of

Table 4.3 Types and Effects of Variations in Number of Sex Chromosomes

Syndrome/Description Chromosome Confi guration Effects Individuals Identifi ed as

Turner syndrome Missing chromosome—X0 Incomplete internal reproductive organs; no fertility

Female

Klinefelter syndrome Extra X chromosome— XXY, XXXY, XXXXY

Feminized male; no fertility Male

Extra X XXX, XXXXX, XXXXX Uncertain fertility or no fertility; developmental disabilities

Female

Extra Y XYY Very tall individuals Male

Hormones and Chromosomes 89

Müllerian-inhibiting substance caused the normal degeneration of the Müllerian system. Thus, these individuals have undescended testes and incomplete female internal repro- ductive systems, but their external genitalia appear female.

Individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome (and their families) can be completely unaware of the disorder. Complicating the diagnosis, their testes produce suffi cient estrogen to prompt breast development during puberty, increasing their feminine appearance. They have no ovaries, Fallopian tubes, or uterus, so they will not reach menarche , the begin- ning of menstruation. Nor will they grow pubic hair, a characteristic under the control of the androgens, to which they are insensitive. No amount of added androgens will reverse this condition, because their body cells are insensitive to it. Indeed, the levels of androgens circulating in their bloodstream are within the normal range for men, but their bodies are “deaf” to these hormones.

Individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome are identifi ed as girls at birth, raised as girls, and have no reason to doubt their gender identifi cation for years. At puberty they grow breasts and begin to look like young women, giving them no reason to imagine they are anything but women. Typically, few suspicions arise concerning any abnormality until they fail to grow pubic hair and fail to reach menarche. Even then these symptoms may be discounted for several years due to the variability of sexual development.

When gynecological examination reveals the abnormality of their internal genitalia, these individuals and their families learn that they are male at the chromosomal and hormonal levels. This information contradicts years of gender role development. Not surprisingly, some of these individuals have diffi culty adjusting to this information. No treatments exist to masculinize these individuals, so no attempt is made to change them. A longitudinal study of individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome (Hines, Ahmed, & Hughes, 2003) indicated that they are similar to other women in gender identity, esteem, and well-being. Despite their male chromosomes, these individuals are women in terms of gender identity, physical appearance, and behavior.

All of these examples of variation in sexual development illustrate individuals born with characteristics of both sexes. The modern term for these conditions is intersexuality or disorders of sexual development ( DSD ). The traditional diagnosis for these individuals was hermaphroditism , now called gonadal intersexuality . This description refers to individuals who have both ovarian and testicular tissue—either an ovary on one side of the body and a testicle on the other side, or both types of tissue combined into a structure called an ovotestis. This condition is extremely rare, with no more than 60 cases being identifi ed in Europe and North America within the last century (Money, 1986).

Another provocative example of intersexuality comes from individuals with a genetic enzyme (5-alpha-reductase) defi ciency that prevents chromosomal males from developing male external genitalia during the prenatal period (Cohen-Kettenis, 2005a; Herdt, 1994). Like individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome, these babies may appear more female than male at birth and are often identifi ed as girls. The appearance of their external genitals is ambiguous, not truly female but defi nitely not male. Unlike people with androgen insensitiv- ity syndrome, these individuals respond to androgens during puberty and develop masculine characteristics. That is, their voice deepens, their muscles develop, their testes descend into the scrotum, and their penis enlarges. For those identifi ed as girls, they no longer fi t into that category. However, most of these individuals do not clearly fi t into the category of male, either.

An early study of these intersex individuals (Imperato-McGinley, Guerrero, Gautier, & Peterson, 1974) indicated that the majority had made at least fairly successful transitions to the male role, but an analysis of studies on this topic (Berenbaum, 2006; Cohen-Kettenis, 2005a) indicated that about 40% of individuals with this syndrome retained a female gender identity. A few individuals identifi ed themselves as men but dressed and lived the social role of women, not clearly fi tting either role. Indeed, the New Guinea culture in which this form

90 Hormones and Chromosomes

of intersexuality is relatively common acknowledges the existence of individuals who do not fi t either sex by devising a third category of sex to describe them (Herdt, 1981). Table 4.4 summarizes the characteristics of these intersex conditions.

A third sex or some continuum for sex seems a better choice than the gender binary that most people assume (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). The intersex individuals represent cases in which chromosomal, hormonal, gonadal, and genital sex are not consistent. As Sheri Beren- baum (2006) pointed out, the determination of sex does not necessarily require complete consistency. For example, individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome have a male chromosome confi guration and normal levels of androgens for men, but they look and feel female—they are female in their own opinion and in the opinion of society (Mazur, 2005). Although individuals with 5-alpha-reductase defi ciency usually identify as either male or female, some experience diffi culties. If hormones and chromosomes were the determining factors in gender identity, then these individuals should all become male, and individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome would be male. Such is not the case. If exposure to prenatal androgens were the determining factor for gender identity, girls with CAH would experience many problems. They do experience more problems with their gender identity than other girls, but a majority of them have no gender confusion or dissatisfaction (Beren- baum, 2006). Although hormones play a very important role in determining reproductive physiology, sex and gender are more than the function of hormones.

Hormones and Behavior Instability

In addition to their role in sexual development and activity, many people consider hormones to affect a wide range of other behaviors. The concept of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and its many negative effects have received wide publicity, as has the relationship between testos- terone and aggression. People tend to attribute unstable, problem behavior to “raging hor- mones,” but how accurate is this belief? How powerful are hormones in affecting behavior?

Premenstrual Syndrome

The notion that women’s reproductive systems affect their mood is ancient (Chrisler & Caplan, 2002), but the concept of premenstrual syndrome is quite modern—it can be traced to the 1960s. During this time, Katharina Dalton published research (reviewed by Parlee, 1973) suggesting that women experience a wide variety of negative emotional, cognitive,

Table 4.4 Intersex Conditions Produced during Prenatal Development

Syndrome Cause Effect Individual Identifi ed as

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

Genetic defect causes increased androgen production

In XX fetuses— Masculinization of external genitalia In XY males— Minimal prenatal effects; early puberty

Female Male

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome

Genetic defect in androgen receptors

Androgens fail to masculinize XY fetus

Female

5-alpha Reductase Defi ciency

Insensitivity to androgens during prenatal development

Ambiguous external genitalia

Female, which changes to male during puberty

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome

Genetic defect in androgen receptors

Androgens fail to masculinize XY fetus

Female

Hormones and Chromosomes 91

and physical effects due to the hormonal changes that precede menstruation. These effects became known as a syndrome , although the list of symptoms extended to over 150, and some of the symptoms were mutually exclusive (such as elevated mood and depression ).

The symptoms associated with the premenstrual phase of the cycle include headache; backache; abdominal bloating and discomfort; breast tenderness; tension or irritability; depression; increased analgesic, alcohol, or sedative use; decreased energy; and disrup- tion in eating, sleeping, sexual behavior, work, and interpersonal relationships (Dickerson, Mazyck, & Hunter, 2003). The most common among these symptoms are tension and irritability, and the widespread belief is that hormones are the underlying cause.

The cyclic variation of hormones in the menstrual cycle affects the release of estrogens and progesterone. In the middle of the cycle, the follicles produce larger amounts of one of the estrogens (estradiol) than during other times of the cycle. With the release of the matured ovum, and the remainder of the follicle from which it was released then starts to produce progesterone. Therefore, during the ovulatory phase of the cycle, estrogen levels are higher than progesterone levels. During the premenstrual phase of the cycle, both estradiol and progesterone fall, and progesterone is at a higher level than estradiol. During the menstrual phase, the levels of both hormones are relatively low.

All of the hormonal changes that occur during the menstrual cycle have been candidates for the underlying cause of premenstrual syndrome (Dickerson et al., 2003). The possibilities include an excess of estrogens, falling progesterone levels, and the ratio of estrogens to pro- gesterone. However, hormonal differences show no consistent relationship with symptoms (Hsiao, Liu, & Hsiao, 2004), and one recent study (Ziomkiewicz et al., 2012) showed a relationship of high progesterone levels to decreased (rather than increased) irritability and fatigue. This failure to tie any pattern of hormonal changes to the symptoms of PMS is a major problem for the concept of PMS.

Photo 4.1 Although the diagnosis of PMS is controversial, many women are willing to label their symptoms as this disorder.

92 Hormones and Chromosomes

The lack of relationship between hormone levels and the experience of PMS also presents a problem for diagnosis; there is no hormone or laboratory test for PMS (Freeman, 2003), and the diagnostic criteria have presented problems for researchers (O’Brien et al., 2011; Weisz & Knaapen, 2009). Women from a variety of cultures report premenstrual symptoms, with some saying that the symptoms are serious enough to interfere with their lives. In France, about 12% of women reported problems serious enough to interfere with their lives (Potter, Bouyer, Trussell, & Moreau, 2009). In the United States, almost 19% of women said they experienced menstrual-related problems (Strine, Chapman, & Ahluwalia, 2005), but these problems include menstrual symptoms—heavy fl ow and cramping—as well as symptoms associated with PMS—anxiety, depression, and sleep problems. In China, 21% showed symptoms of PMS (Qiao et al., 2012), whereas in India, only 4.7% of women reported severe symptoms associated with the premenstrual period (Joshi, Pandey, Galvanker, & Gogate, 2010). Even women who experience no troublesome problems associated with menstruation still report premenstrual symptoms (Gonda et al., 2008).

The existence of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) makes the diagnosis of PMS even more confusing. PMDD was added to an appendix of the fourth edition of the Diag- nostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the offi cial guidelines for diagnosing mental disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association, and moved into the body of the DSM in its fi fth edition as one of the depressive disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). PMDD is a more severe version of PMS; its treatment includes prescrip- tion antidepressant drugs.

According to the Media . . . PMS Is a Joke

For many years, television did not mention any type of menstrual process, either in its entertainment programming or in advertising. Even before PMS could be mentioned by name on television, it was a topic in sitcoms (Parsons, 2004). In 1973, the charac- ter of Gloria in the sitcom All in the Family expressed unreasonable irritation clearly attributable to premenstrual tension.

Over the next 30 years, PMS continued to be the topic of humor on television, and it began to be named (Parsons, 2004). Menarche, the beginning of menstruation, and meno- pause, the ending of menstrual periods, were portrayed on dramas as well as comedies in ways that educated as well as entertained (Kissling, 2002). PMS, on the other hand, appeared only as a comedy ploy. Women in sitcoms such as Taxi, Married with Children, Roseanne, and Everybody Loves Raymond showed symptoms of PMS—always the emotional rather than physical ones. In these sitcoms, the male characters suffer more than the female characters from the female characters’ PMS (Parsons, 2004). These puzzled men bear the brunt of angry outbursts, crying spells, mood swings, and temper tantrums, without any suggestion in the script that the men’s behavior might contribute to their partners’ irritation.

Other media have followed in the steps of TV sitcoms by portraying PMS as a joke. An analysis of over 2,000 tweets on Twitter (Thornton, 2013) on the subject of menstruation revealed comments about PMS featuring moody, irrational women and victimized, suffering men. A California advertising fi rm formulated a campaign for milk focused around the notion that the calcium in milk can help with PMS (Elliott, 2011). The ads were intended to be humorous, showing desperate husbands buying gallons and gallons of milk and even raiding milk delivery trucks in their desperate attempts to relieve their wives’ PMS. Many people failed to fi nd this portrayal funny. The ads provoked a storm of controversy and were discontinued quickly.

Hormones and Chromosomes 93

According to the Research . . . PMS is not so Funny

About 19% of women in the United States between the ages of 18 and 55 report some type of distress associated with menstruation (Strine et al., 2005). Many of these unpleas- ant symptoms are not associated with PMS but rather with the menstrual period, such as heavy bleeding or painful cramping. However, PMS was among the problems mentioned by these women. The list of symptoms associated with PMS is extensive, numbering over 100 (Chrisler & Caplan, 2002). The most commonly mentioned symptom is fl uid retention, especially in the breasts and abdomen, rather than the emotional symptoms portrayed on sitcoms (Parsons, 2004). Other symptoms include additional physical man- ifestations such as acne, headaches, aches or pain in the muscles or joints, fatigue, sleep problems, alterations in sex drive, cravings for sweet or salty food, and constipation or diarrhea, as well as emotional symptoms such as bursts of energy, sadness, depression, anxiety, tension, moodiness, and feeling out of control. To present such symptoms as amusing requires substantial insensitivity to the women who experience these symptoms.

Television sitcoms portray men as the victims of women’s PMS, but some research (Skatssoon, 2005) suggested that men may be more than innocent bystanders: Women who lived with men were more likely to report PMS than women who lived with other women. Consistent with portrayals on television, research indicates that women often experience problems during the premenstrual period that involve relationship issues. PMS researcher Jane Ussher (Ussher & Perz, 2013) reported that relationship issues were often the source of stress and problems that become the focus of confl ict during the premenstrual period. An alternative explanation to women’s irrationality and oversensitivity is that women’s anger may be justifi ed, but they (and their male partners) are willing to blame themselves and PMS for women’s reactions. This interpretation is quite consistent with television sitcoms but may not be best for women’s health or, in the long run, for their relationships.

Distinguishing among premenstrual symptoms, PMS, and PMDD presents a challenge for researchers and clinicians (O’Brien et al., 2011; Weisz & Knaapen, 2009; Yonkers, Pearl- stein, & Rosenheck, 2003). About half the women seeking treatment from a gynecology practice reported that they experienced symptoms of PMS, but about a third of that group did not meet the criteria for PMS. In other studies (McFarlane, Martin, & Williams, 1988; McFarlane & Williams, 1994), about half the women who met and about half who failed to meet diagnostic criteria consistent with PMS reported that they had it. A random survey of women (Deuster, Adera, & South-Paul, 1999) indicated that only 8.3% experienced PMS. A recent review of studies that followed women through at least one menstrual cycle and col- lected data on mood during each phrase (Romans, Clarkson, Einstein, Petrovic, & Stewart, 2012) came to the conclusion that there is no evidence for the association of negative mood and the premenstrual phase of the cycle.

These results suggest that the belief in PMS is more widespread than PMS. What has contributed to the widespread belief that most women are victims of their hormones and suffer not only during their menstrual periods but also during the two or three weeks before (which totals three out of four weeks of the month)? Media publicity may be one answer (see According to the Media and According to the Research), but researchers have explored some additional possibilities.

Two longitudinal studies by Jessica McFarlane and her colleagues (McFarlane et al., 1988; McFarlane & Williams, 1994) offer some insight into beliefs about PMS. Both studies

94 Hormones and Chromosomes

involved instructing women (and men) to keep records of their daily moods without know- ing that the menstrual cycle was the focus of the study (to avoid bias by alerting participants to the topic of the study). Both studies included women who were cycling normally, women who were taking oral contraceptives and thus not ovulating, and men. The main result of the study by McFarlane et al. (1988) was that no differences in mood stability appeared when comparing the young men and the young women who participated in the study. All participants experienced similar mood changes within a day as well as from day to day. Also, the men and women reported similar variability in mood during the 70 days of the study. These results offer no support for the existence of PMS.

A second study (McFarlane & Williams, 1994) recruited participants who were older than the typical college students and lasted at least 12 weeks to cover more menstrual cycles. The analysis for this study included an evaluation of each participant’s cyclic mood variation over time. This study also revealed that people experienced cyclic mood variations—but not in the PMS pattern. In comparing women who were cycling normally to women taking oral contraceptives and to the men, the women who were cycling normally reported more pleas- ant moods during and immediately after their periods than in the ovulatory or premenstrual periods (McFarlane et al., 1988), and few reported emotional symptoms consistent with PMS (McFarlane & Williams, 1994). A recent review of menstrual cycle research (Romans et al., 2012) supports these fi ndings: There is no consistent pattern of negative mood associ- ated with the premenstrual period.

Why do so many women believe that they have PMS? One reason is perception of the signals that predict the onset of menstruation. Women around the world experience pre- menstrual symptoms, recognizing their bodies’ signals that their periods are going to start (Adewuya, Loto, & Adewumi, 2009; Lee, So-Kum Tang, & Chong, 2009; Miller, 2002). Some people are more responsive to body signals than others. Comparing women who showed higher sensitivity to bodily cues to those who showed less revealed that women with high body sensitivity reported more emotional responses during the premenstrual periods than women less sensitive to their bodies’ changes (Schnall, Abrahamson, & Laird, 2002). Indeed, the experience of physical symptoms is a major factor in accepting PMS (Kiesner, 2009). However, about half of the women reported positive emotional changes, including greater energy and happiness.

Recognizing symptoms of an impending menstrual period also allows women to attribute negative moods to PMS rather than to some other source (such as stress, pressure at work or school, or relationship confl icts). This cognitive process of attribution allows for distortion of cognitive processes that maintain beliefs in PMS, even if an individual’s experience does not. For example, by imagining that all women have PMS and by believing that one’s own symptoms are less severe than the norm, a woman can feel superior to the average woman (Chrisler, Rose, Dutch, Sklarsky, & Grant, 2006). Women (and the men around them) may be more comfortable in attributing negative emotions to PMS rather than accepting those negative emotions as part of the self (Chrisler, 2008; Chrisler & Caplan, 2002). After all, women are supposed to be sweet, kind, and nurturant; if they behave otherwise, PMS is a good excuse.

Both women and men are willing to attribute moody behavior to PMS (Koeske & Koeske, 1975). When furnished with information about a woman’s cycle, both men and women tended to use this information as a partial explanation for the woman’s emotional behavior. If people believe that these symptoms are associated with the premenstrual period as well as menstruation, they can apply this explanation at least half the time—the week (or two) before and the week during menstruation. When they experience the same situations and reactions at other phases of their cycle, they seek other explanations. In

Hormones and Chromosomes 95

this way, premenstrual syndrome can become a self-perpetuating myth for the women who react to problems, stresses, and irritations in their lives as well as for the people who observe the reactions.

Does this explanation of PMS mean that the syndrome is not “real”? Are women imagin- ing all their premenstrual symptoms? And what about those women who experience very serious symptoms that meet the diagnosis of PMDD? None of the fi ndings on expectancy and attribution of symptoms indicates that the symptoms are not real; women are not imag- ining their discomfort, irritation, anxiety, bloating, sleep problems, and cramps. They may, however, be misattributing these symptoms to PMS when other explanations would be more accurate. For example, anxiety varies across the menstrual cycle in some women (Szollos, Thyrum, & Martin, 2006), and those women often show symptoms consistent with PMS. A recent study (Hoyer et al., 2013) showed that women diagnosed with PMS exhibited higher stress and more physiological indicators of a stress response when they worked on resolving an emotional confl ict during the premenstrual phase of their cycle. A survey of women in the United States (Strine et al., 2005) indicated that women who reported severe menstrual problems also reported problems with depression, anxiety, and stress. Perhaps the concept of PMS provides a convenient label—it is more acceptable to label women’s distress as PMS rather than to consider and address more complex sources for problems, such as work and relationships that produce tension, stress, anxiety, and depression (Chrisler et al., 2006; Chrisler & Caplan, 2002).

Gendered Voices: People Believe That Hormones Make People Crazy

People tend to attribute too much power to hormones, often confusing the action of hormones with neurotransmitters, which are neurochemicals that guide the activity of the brain and nervous system. I became aware of this confusion due to a class activity in which I asked students to survey people about what behaviors hormones control. Some of the responses:

21-year-old male lab technician: “I believe that hormones control about 70% of emo- tion and behavior, especially when the hormone levels aren’t balanced.”

18-year-old female student: “Women have periods, which makes their hormones crazy, and men have raging hormones that makes them a bit crazy.”

20-year-old female college student : “I cry all the time because of my hormones. I liter- ally cry over the smallest things all because of my hormones.”

51-year-old man: “High levels of hormones can make people crazy.” 68-year-old grandmother: “Hormones infl uence young men the most because all they

think about is sex.” 15-year-old female student: “A girl on her period, she may want to kill somebody.” 20-year-old male college student: “I would think that hormones dictate everything

about behavior. I would think that they would completely guide a person’s behav- ior. For everybody.”

One insightful student’s analysis of the responses she heard: “It seems as though people let stereotypes trump actual science, and that’s pretty sad.”

96 Hormones and Chromosomes

But what about premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), which is a more serious ver- sion of PMS and classifi ed as a psychiatric disorder? Thousands of women have received that diagnosis, but might PMDD also be subject to misattribution? That diagnosis has been the center of continuing controversy oriented around that possibility. Proponents claim that the disorder has a physiological basis and requires pharmacological treatment (Epperson et al., 2012). Opponents claim that the diagnosis creates the impression of pathology where none exists (Ussher, 2013) and offers unwarranted opportunities for prescribing drugs (Cosgrove & Wheeler, 2013). Women diagnosed with PMS and PMDD respond favorably to antidepres- sant drugs (Steiner & Li, 2013), but the possibility exists that these women may actually experi- ence depression that is exacerbated by hormonal variations (Miller & Miller, 2001). As some researchers contend, PMDD may be a created disorder with little validity as a separate diagnosis (Flora & Sellers, 2003). Despite the arguments against this diagnosis, PMDD moved from the appendix of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) to the section on depressive disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), guaranteeing that the controversy will continue.

In summary, PMS has received wide publicity and wide acceptance, but research has failed to confi rm a clear biological basis, and emotional symptoms are subject to expectation and attribution. It may be convenient to explain women’s negative moods in terms of PMS or even PMDD, but it is probably not accurate to do so.

Testosterone and Aggression

The collision between Mars and Venus was not the only confl ict discussed in Spinney’s (2011) headline article, which also touched on confl ict and aggression between men. Spin- ney cited statistics about confl ict and competition between men, saying that it is common to 90% of human societies, but the form and severity of male aggression varies enormously among those societies. The widespread assumption is that men’s higher levels of testosterone are the source of all this aggression. Do men’s hormones prepare them to be warriors? And how does testosterone affect women’s behavior?

What is the role of testosterone in aggression? This relationship has three possibilities: (1) Testosterone may cause increases in aggression, (2) aggressive behavior may cause increases in testosterone levels, or (3) levels of testosterone and aggression may be mediated through some other biological or social mechanism (Mazur, 2009; Ramirez, 2003). Although many people assume the fi rst view, research has provided more evidence for the second and third possibilities.

The relationship between testosterone levels and aggression is complex rather than a sim- ple, linear relationship. James Dabbs and his colleagues (Dabbs, 2000) conducted dozens of studies on hormone levels and behavior in both men and women. These studies revealed that high testosterone levels were related to impulsive and antisocial (what Dabbs called “rambunctious”) behaviors, but few studies found a link to aggressive or violent behaviors.

Within the normal range of testosterone (which varies by a great deal), testosterone may not be a major factor in behavior. However, for men with the highest levels of testosterone, problems appeared in a variety of behaviors. For example, U.S. military veterans showed a positive relationship between testosterone level and drug and alcohol abuse, antisocial behavior, and affective disorders (Dabbs, Hopper, & Jurkovic, 1990). Men whose testoster- one fell within the upper 10% of testosterone levels had a history of trouble with parents, teachers, and classmates as well as a history of drug use and more instances of going Absent Without Leave (AWOL) while in the military (Dabbs & Morris, 1990). Men with high lev- els of testosterone also tend to have lower-status occupations, which may indicate that high

Hormones and Chromosomes 97

testosterone levels are related to behaviors that make success less likely, such as impulsiveness and antisocial behavior (Dabbs, 1992, 2000).

Dabbs and his colleagues found relationships between testosterone levels and a variety of problem behaviors, including delinquency (Banks & Dabbs, 1996), membership in a “rowdy” fraternity (Dabbs, Hargrove, & Heusel, 1996), and a greater likelihood of quit- ting or being fi red from a job (Heusel & Dabbs, 1996). A more specifi c example of the relationship between testosterone and violence appeared in a study of male prisoners who had committed crimes against individuals involving sex and violence and those who had committed property crimes (Dabbs, Carr, Frady, & Riad, 1995). Table 4.5 summarizes the fi ndings from research by Dabbs and his colleagues. Confi rming this body of research, meta- analyses (Archer, Graham-Kevan, & Davies, 2005; Book & Quinsey, 2005) have shown a small relationship between testosterone levels and aggression in men, in delinquent boys (van Bokhoven et al., 2006), and in adolescent girls with conduct disorder (Pajer et al., 2006).

Women also produce testosterone, and Dabbs and his colleagues investigated the rela- tionship between testosterone levels and aggression in women. This research yielded even more complex relationships between testosterone levels and behavior. For women in prison (Dabbs, Ruback, Frady, Hopper, & Sgoutas, 1988), the highest levels of testosterone corre- lated with incidents of unprovoked violence. However, women who had committed violence in protecting themselves, such as those who had murdered an abusive spouse, had the lowest levels of testosterone in the prison group. Interestingly, the mean levels of testosterone were similar for the inmates and the college students used as the comparison group, and both averages fell within the normal range for women.

The failure to fi nd differences between women convicted of crimes and female students indicates that aggression and violence are infl uenced by factors other than testosterone level,

Photo 4.2 Contrary to its popular image, testosterone may play a role in preparing men to be nurturant fathers.

98 Hormones and Chromosomes

including SES, which moderates the relationship between testosterone and problem behavior in men. A more recent study (Ellis & Das, 2013) found that androgen level was related to delinquency, but so was the relationship that adolescents had with their parents. Thus, the evidence is weak that testosterone is the underlying cause of aggression.

Although the evidence that testosterone causes aggression is lacking, a causal relation- ship might still exist in the other direction—aggression may cause increases in testosterone. Although this relationship is not what most people imagine, both laboratory experiments and descriptive fi eld studies have demonstrated this effect. In two laboratory studies (Carré & McCormick, 2008; Carré, Putnam, & McCormick, 2009), no initial relationship appeared between testosterone level and aggressive behavior, but men who behaved aggressively showed raised testosterone levels. Another laboratory study showed that symbolic aggres- sion produce an effect—handling a gun increased testosterone levels in men (Klinesmith, Kasser, & McAndrew, 2006).

A number of fi eld studies have examined the relationship between testosterone level and winning versus losing in sports competitions. An early study (Booth, Shelley, Mazur, Tharp, & Kittok, 1989) is representative: Tennis players showed increases of testosterone on days when they played, and their hormone levels were highest before the game. The effects of winning and losing were complex, moderated by players’ evaluations of their performance; players who felt positively about their performance tended to have higher testosterone levels after games.

Later research has produced fi ndings consistent with this early study. Competition boosts testosterone levels, and the effects apply to both women and men. For example, athletic competition increased testosterone levels in both male and female soccer players (Edwards, Wetzel, & Wyner, 2006). For female rugby players, testosterone levels were higher on the days of matches and increased during the matches (Bateup, Booth, Shirtcliff, & Granger, 2002). An examination of hormone levels among male and female rowing competitors also showed effects of competition (Kivlighan, Granger, & Booth, 2005). Both of the studies that included male and female athletes showed different patterns of testosterone changes for women and men that related to social relationships with teammates, but a later study

Table 4.5 Relationship of Testosterone to Various Behaviors in Men and Women

In Men In Women

Behaviors Associated with Higher Testosterone Levels

Lower-status occupations Unprovoked violence among prisoners Drug and alcohol abuse among veterans Antisocial disorders among veterans Affective disorders among veterans Trouble getting along with parents, teachers, and classmates among veterans Delinquent behaviors while young Membership in a “rowdy” fraternity Job loss Incarceration for crimes involving sex or violence Rule violations and personal confrontations among prisoners

Behaviors Not Associated with Higher Testosterone Levels Personality traits among students Violent criminal acts

Prisoner versus student status

Hormones and Chromosomes 99

(Jimémez, Aguilar, & Alvero-Cruz, 2012) found similar patterns of testosterone change for male and female athletes.

Competition, winning, and losing are not the only circumstances that prompt changes in testosterone levels. For male soccer players, playing on the home fi eld increased testosterone levels signifi cantly more than playing “away” games (Wolfson & Neave, 2004). Watching a fi lm of an earlier hockey victory boosted testosterone levels among players (Carré & Putman, 2010). Therefore, research evidence suggests that competition raises testosterone, but the fi ndings also hint that other factors may be important in the equation.

Another possibility for a relationship holds that violence and aggression are the product of an interaction in which testosterone is only one component (Ramirez, 2003). A growing body of research and theory supports this view. In addition to testosterone, one model holds that cortisol (a stress-related hormone secreted by the adrenal gland) and the neurotransmitter serotonin (a neurotransmitter related to mood) interact with testosterone in complex ways to predispose various types of aggression (Montoya, Terburg, Bos, & van Honk, 2012). Situ- ations in which individuals are put into competition or strive to exert dominance tend to boost testosterone. High levels of cortisol occur when a person experiences threat or fear, and this model hypothesizes that this reaction should inhibit aggression, even with high levels of testosterone. When individuals experience the combination of high testosterone and low levels of cortisol, however, social aggression becomes more likely. When low levels of serotonin are added to this imbalance, the likelihood of aggression as a reaction to threat or insult increases (van Honk, Harmon-Jones, Morgan, & Schutter, 2010). This model also attempts to tie the effects of these chemicals to brain structures that mediate fear and aggression.

Most of the research on this model has focused on men (Montoya et al., 2012; van Honk et al., 2010), but some research has measured women’s aggression as a function of testos- terone and cortisol levels. One study (Denson, Mehta, & Ho Tan, 2013) found that high levels of both hormones were related to higher levels of retaliatory aggression in a laboratory task. Thus, this model has received support from a variety of studies and supports a complex interaction testosterone, cortisol, and serotonin in aggressive behavior.

Considering Diversity

“The polarity of male-female is taken to be an absolute in modern Western cultures” (Sell, 2004, p. 133). This point of view creates limited possibilities for cultural variations in sexual development; biological sex is a matter of chromosomes and hormones. However, non-Western cultures include a variety of possibilities in how they divide those categories, including a category for a third sex.

In Western cultures, individuals born with some intersex condition are evaluated as abnor- mal and in need of medical attention, but in some cultures, these individuals are considered special (Sell, 2004). For example, a defi ciency of 5-alpha-reductase, an enzyme necessary in the body’s use of testosterone, produces individuals with normal male internal genitalia but with external genitals that more closely resemble a girl’s than a boy’s. These differences include a clitoris-like penis, an unfused scrotum that resembles labia, and undescended testes. At birth, these babies are sometimes identifi ed as boys but are more often identifi ed and reared as girls. At puberty they produce testosterone and become “masculinized”: Their penis grows, their testes descend, they grow facial hair, and their musculature increases. That is, they change from individuals who look more like girls to ones who look more like boys.

This rare disorder is more common in the Dominican Republic and New Guinea than in most other parts of the world (Herdt, 1981, 1994), and these two cultures have a term for a third sex, one that is neither male nor female but that starts out as female and becomes

100 Hormones and Chromosomes

male. Even after these individuals develop masculine characteristics, the Sambia culture of New Guinea does not grant them full male status, but they may gain prestige and power in their culture as healers or shamans.

More than 130 Native American societies identifi ed individuals whose “spirit” did not match the sex of their bodies. Modern anthropologists often classify these individuals as berdaches— men or women who adopted the gender-related behaviors of the other gender (Roscoe, 1993; Wieringa, 1994), but Native American societies had specifi c terms in their languages; contemporary Native American scholars prefer the term two-spirit people. These individuals were not intersex, but instead individuals who chose to blend masculine and feminine roles. The tradition of men who adopted characteristics of women was more com- mon, but both male and female two-spirit people existed. Lakota, Navajo, Crow, and Zuni societies all included two-spirit people who were not thought of as homosexual but as a merging of feminine and masculine spirits, which they attained through a blessing from the spirits, achieving high spiritual status in their societies. Not all Native American societies were acceptant of these individuals, but most accepted these departures from ordinary gender roles rather than viewing them as deviations.

India also has a “third sex,” the hijras , who are men who wish to become women (Nanda, 2000; Reddy, 2005). These men may be intersex (individuals whose genitals are not clearly male or female), transvestites (men who dress in women’s clothing), or transgendered men (who wish to or have undergone genital surgery to become female). The hijras trace their origin to Hindu mythology as men who worship the goddess Bedhraj Matá, sacrifi ce their genitals to her, and live without sexuality. Hijras are believed to have the power to confer fertility and thus are welcomed at weddings and births.

In several cultures, women can assume the male gender role (Nanda, 2000). For example, several African societies allow “female husbands.” These women assume the male role and receive recognition as men. They may have wives, but they may also be a wife, conferring a status that is neither male nor female. In northern Albania, women may also become men in the form of “sworn virgins,” who dress and behave as men but who do not form any type of sexual relationships with women or men (Littlewood, 2002).

Thus, some cultures have a category for a third sex, providing for individuals whose biol- ogy has not clearly designated them male or female and for those who choose to blend roles. In addition, some cultures designate a category for third sex as anyone who fails to fi t clearly within the two categories designated by their society. This classifi cation arose after 1900 with the movement of women into the workforce in Europe and North America (Murat, 2005). These “emancipated” women performed jobs that removed them from the female gender role but did not make them into men, resulting in a failure to fi t into either gender category. Many Western women are categorized as a third sex in Muslim countries, such as Saudi Ara- bia (Lagace, 2002), when they perform jobs that these cultures consider the domain of men and fail to wear the clothing considered proper for women. Thus women who hold jobs in business, law, medicine, journalism, and higher education fi t into this category.

Summary

Several steroid hormones are important to sexual development and behavior, including the androgens, the estrogens, and the progestins. Men and women produce all of these hor- mones, but women produce proportionately more estrogens and progestins, whereas men produce more androgens. The prenatal production of these hormones prompts the bodies and brains of fetuses to organize in either the male or the female pattern. During puberty, these hormones work toward developing fertility and prompt the production of secondary sex characteristics, such as facial hair for men and breasts for women. The role of hormones

Hormones and Chromosomes 101

in the activation and maintenance of sexual interest and activity is less clear in humans than in other species, but humans who do not experience the surge of hormones associated with puberty tend not to develop much interest in sex. Testosterone, one of the androgens, plays a role in maintaining sexual activity in men and possibly in women as well.

The fi rst step in creating a male or female body occurs through genes, the inheritance of either XX or XY chromosomes of pair 23. Although the inheritance of chromosomes occurs at conception, embryos are not sexually dimorphic until around 6 weeks into gestation, when those with the XY pattern develop testes. Androgens produced by the fetal testes mas- culinize the fetus. During the third month of gestation, androgens direct the development of external male genitalia.

The female pattern is not as dependent on the presence of estrogens as the male pattern is on androgens, but various genes on several chromosomes in addition to the Xs contribute to forming a female body. After the sixth week of gestation, the Müllerian structures begin to develop and become the ovaries, Fallopian tubes, uterus, and upper vagina. In addition, their Wolffi an structures start to degenerate. Without exposure to androgens, the external genitalia develop according to the female pattern.

Prenatal hormones also affect brain development, producing differences in the brains of males versus females. Several brain structures are affected, but the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the hypothalamus shows the biggest difference. Its function is not yet understood.

Variances from the typical female or male patterns may occur at any stage of sexual devel- opment, beginning with the inheritance of the X and Y chromosomes. A number of disorders exist that create individuals with fewer or more sex chromosomes than typical, and some of these confi gurations produce problems with the development of internal or external genita- lia. In addition, several of these disorders produce individuals with developmental disorders, especially lowered intelligence. Individuals with Turner syndrome (X0) appear to be female but lack ovaries; individuals with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) appear to be male, often with feminized body contours, but have nonfunctional testes; XXX individuals are female and may vary little from XX individuals; XYY individuals are tall males who may be reproduc- tively normal but with low intelligence.

Even having 46 chromosomes does not guarantee typical development in subsequent stages, and several types of intersexuality exist. These cases of individuals who have the physiology of both males and females highlight the complexity of sexual development and suggest that many components contribute to gender identity and functioning.

Media reports tend to indicate a role for hormones in two areas of problem behavior— premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and aggression. Careful research has indicated that the pre- menstrual phase of the cycle often includes some physical symptoms, but it also suggests that expectation and attribution, not hormones, are the factors that underlie widespread reports of PMS. Both women and men may attribute behavioral symptoms to PMS and the more severe PMDD, when those symptoms may actually indicate other problems.

Research on the role of testosterone in aggression has revealed that the relationship is not a simple, linear one. Men with higher-than-average testosterone levels tend to engage in a wide variety of antisocial behaviors but usually not violence. Indeed, studies of competition and testosterone show that aggression increases testosterone rather than the other way around. Another possibility is that testosterone and aggression are mediated through some other fac- tor, and recent research has implicated the stress hormone cortisol and the neurotransmitter serotonin as interacting with testosterone to increases the chances of aggression.

The role of hormones in sexual development is not subject to cultural variation, but how culture delineates the sexes varies enormously. In addition to male and female, some cultures defi ne a third sex. In some non-Western cultures, intersex individuals may be considered to be a third sex. Another basis for a third sex was a belief common among Native American

102 Hormones and Chromosomes

societies that allowed for a melding of the two spirits, male and female, in an individual. The hijras in India are another group designated a third sex. Women who take the roles of men may vary from the female gender role so much that they are no longer considered women but some third sex.

Glossary

androgen insensitivity syndrome a disorder in which body cells are unable to respond to androgens, resulting in the feminization of chromosomal males.

androgens a class of hormones that includes testosterone and other steroid hormones. Men typically produce a greater proportion of androgens than estrogens.

congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) a disorder that results in masculinization, produc- ing premature puberty in boys and masculinization of the external genitalia in girls; also called adrenogenital syndrome .

endocrine glands glands that secrete hormones into the circulatory system. estradiol the most common of the estrogen hormones. estrogens a class of hormones that includes estradiol and other steroid hormones. Women

typically produce a greater proportion of estrogens than androgens. external genitalia the reproductive structures that can be seen without internal examination:

clitoris, labia, and vaginal opening in women and penis and scrotum in men. gonads reproductive organs. hermaphroditism a disorder in which individuals have characteristics of both sexes. hormones chemical substances released from endocrine glands that circulate throughout

the body and affect target organs that have receptors sensitive to the specifi c hormones. intersexuality a more modern term for hermaphroditism. Klinefelter syndrome the disorder that occurs when a chromosomal male has an extra X

chromosome, resulting in the XXY pattern of chromosome pair 23. These individuals have the appearance of males, including external genitalia, but they may also develop breasts and a feminized body shape. Their testes are not capable of producing sperm, so they are sterile.

lateralization the concept that the two cerebral hemispheres are not functionally equal but rather that each hemisphere has different purposes.

menarche the fi rst menstruation. Müllerian system a system of ducts occurring in both male and female embryos that forms

the basis for the development of the female internal reproductive system—ovaries, fal- lopian tubes, uterus, and upper vagina.

progestins a group of steroid hormones that prepares the female body for pregnancy; their function for the male body is unknown.

sexual dimorphism the existence of two sexes—male and female—including differences in genetics, gonads, hormones, internal genitalia, and external genitalia.

sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN) a brain structure in the hypothalamus, near the optic chiasm, that is larger in male rats than in female rats and larger in men than in women.

steroid hormones hormones related to sexual dimorphism and sexual reproduction that are derived from cholesterol and consist of a structure that includes four carbon rings.

testosterone the most common of the androgen hormones. Turner syndrome the disorder that occurs when an individual has only one chromosome of

pair 23, one X chromosome. These individuals appear to be female (have the external genitalia of females) but do not have fully developed internal genitalia. They do not produce estrogens, do not undergo puberty, and are not fertile.

Hormones and Chromosomes 103

Wolffi an system a system of ducts occurring in both male and female embryos that forms the basis for the development of the male internal reproductive system—testes, seminal vesicles, and vas deferens.

X chromosome one of the possible alternatives for chromosome pair 23. Two X chromosomes make a genetic female, whereas genetic males have only one X chromosome in pair 23.

Y chromosome one of the possible alternatives for chromosome pair 23. One X and one Y chromosome make a genetic male, whereas genetic females have two X chromosomes in pair 23.

Suggested Readings

Berenbaum, Sheri A. (2006). Psychological outcome in children with disorders of sex development: Implications for treatment and understanding typical development. Annual Review of Sex Research, 17 , 1–38. Berenbaum’s thoughtful article evaluates variations of sexual development, exploring the complexity of the

biology and psychology of gender development.

Mazur, Allan. (2009). A hormonal interpretation of Collins’s micro-social theory of violence. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 39 (4), 434–447. Mazur’s article is not easy reading, but his careful translation of a sociological analysis of violence into terms

compatible with current hormonal theories provides a thorough review of this model of hormones and aggression.

Ussher, Jane M. (2013). Diagnosing diffi cult women and pathologising femininity: Gender bias in psychiatric nosology. Feminism & Psychology, 23 (1), 63–69. Ussher situates the controversy over PMS in historical context and takes the point of view that psychiatry has

a long history of interpreting women’s behavior as abnormal.

Wade, Lisa. (2013). The new science of sex differences. Sociology Compass, 7 (4), 278–293. This recent article on the genes, hormones, and social context of sexual development offers a good review of

the complexities of these interacting factors.

Suggested Websites

The website health-cares.net includes a variety of topics on health, including several sections on premenstrual syndrome (http://womens-health.health-cares.net/premenstrual-syndrome.php). “What is Premenstrual Syn- drome” and “Causes of Premenstrual Syndrome” are particularly informative.

The Intersex Society of North America is dedicated to developing an understanding of intersex conditions and ending the shame associated with such conditions. Their website (http://www.isna.org/) provides information about the condition, including advice for parents of children with intersex conditions.

The Androgen Insensitivity Support Group’s website (http://www.aissg.org/) provides not only an online support group for individuals with and parents of children with androgen insensitivity syndrome, but it also provides information about androgen insensitivity syndrome and other intersex conditions. The Personal Stories page of the website humanizes this medical condition.

References

Adewuya, Abiodun O.; Loto, Olabisi M.; Adewumi, Tomi A. (2009). Pattern and correlates of premenstrual symptomatology amongst Nigerian university students. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 30 (2), 127–132.

Ahmed, Eman I.; Zehr, Julia L.; Schulz, Kalynn M.; Lorenz, Betty H.; DonCarlos, Lydia L.; & Sisk, Cheryl L. (2008). Pubertal hormones modulate the addition of new cells to sexually dimorphic brain regions. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (9), 995–997.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., Text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Wash- ington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

104 Hormones and Chromosomes

Archer, John; Graham-Kevan, Nicola; & Davies, Michelle. (2005). Testosterone and aggression: A reanalysis of Book, Starzyk, and Quinsey’s (2001) study. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10 , 241–261.

Bancroft, John. (2002). Biological factors in human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 39 , 15–21. Banks, Terry; & Dabbs, James M., Jr. (1996). Salivary testosterone and cortisol in delinquent and violent urban

subcultures. Journal of Social Psychology, 136 , 49–56. Bassil, Nazem; Alkaade, Saad; & Morley, John E. (2009). The benefi ts and risks of testosterone replacement

therapy: A review. Journal of Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 5 , 427–448. Bateup, Helen S.; Booth, Alan; Shirtcliff, Elizabeth A.; & Granger, Douglas A. (2002). Testosterone, cortisol,

and women’s competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23 , 181–192. Berenbaum, Sheri A. (2006). Psychological outcome in children with disorders of sex development: Implications

for treatment and understanding typical development. Annual Review of Sex Research, 17 , 1–38. Book, Angela S.; & Quinsey, Vernon L. (2005). Re-examining the issues: A response to Archer et al. Aggression

and Violent Behavior, 10 , 637–646. Booth, Alan; Shelley, Greg; Mazur, Allan; Tharp, Gerry; & Kittok, Roger. (1989). Testosterone, and winning

and losing in human competition. Hormones and Behavior, 23 , 556–571. Carré, Justin M.; & McCormick, Cheryl M. (2008). Aggressive behavior and change in salivary testosterone

concentrations predict willingness to engage in a competitive task. Hormones & Behavior, 54 (3), 403–409. Carré, Justin M.; & Putman, Susan K. (2010). Watching a previous victory produces an increase in testosterone

among elite hockey players. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35 (3), 475–479. Carré, Justin M.; Putnam, Susan K.; & McCormick, Cheryl M. (2009). Testosterone responses to competition

predict future aggressive behaviour at a cost to reward in men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34 (4), 561–570. Chrisler, Joan C. (2008). PMS as a culture-bound syndrome. In J. C. Chrisler, C. Golden, & P. D. Rozee (Eds.),

Lectures on the psychology of women (4th ed., pp. 155–171). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chrisler, Joan C.; & Caplan, Paula. (2002). The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde: How PMS became a

cultural phenomenon and a psychiatric disorder. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13 , 274–306. Chrisler, Joan C.; Rose, Jennifer Gorman; Dutch, Susan E.; Sklarsky, Katherine G.; & Grant, Marie C. (2006).

The PMS illusion: Social cognition maintains social construction. Sex Roles, 54 (5/6), 371–376. Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T. (2005a). Gender change in 46, XY persons with 5a-reductase-2 defi ciency and

17b-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 defi ciency. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34 , 399–410. Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T. (2005b). Psychological long-term outcome in intersex conditions. Hormone Research,

64 (Suppl. 2), 27–30. Cosgrove, Lisa; & Wheeler, Emily E. (2013). Industry’s colonization of psychiatry: Ethical and practical implica-

tions of fi nancial confl icts of interest in the DSM-5 . Feminism & Psychology, 23 (1), 93–106. Cutter, William J.; Daly, Eileen M.; Robertson, Dene M. W.; Chitnis, Xavier A.; van Amelsvoort, Therese A. M. J.;

Simmons, Andrew; . . . Murphy, Declan G. M. (2006). Infl uence of X chromosome and hormones on human brain development: A magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study of turner syndrome. Biological Psychiatry, 59 (3), 273–283.

Dabbs, James M., Jr. (1992). Testosterone and occupational achievement. Social Forces, 70 , 813–824. Dabbs, James M., Jr.; Carr, Timothy S.; Frady, Robert L.; & Riad, Jasmin K. (1995). Testosterone, crime, and

misbehavior among 692 male prison inmates. Personality and Individual Differences, 18 , 627–633. Dabbs, James M., Jr.; & Dabbs, Mary Godwin. (2000). Heroes, rogues, and lovers: Testosterone and behavior . New

York: McGraw-Hill. Dabbs, James M., Jr.; Hargrove, Marian F.; & Heusel, Colleen. (1996). Testosterone differences among college

fraternities: Well-behaved vs. rambunctious. Personality and Individual Differences, 20 , 157–161. Dabbs, James M., Jr.; Hopper, Charles H.; & Jurkovic, Gregory J. (1990). Testosterone and personality among

college students and military veterans. Personality and Individual Differences, 11 , 1263–1269. Dabbs, James M., Jr.; & Morris, Robin. (1990). Testosterone, social class, and antisocial behavior in a sample of

4,462 men. Psychological Science, 1 , 209–211. Dabbs, James M., Jr.; Ruback, R. Barry; Frady, Robert L.; Hopper, Charles H.; & Sgoutas, Demetrios S.

(1988). Saliva testosterone and criminal violence among women. Personality and Individual Differences, 9 , 269–275.

Denson, Thomas F.; Mehta, Pranjal H.; & Ho Tan, Daniela. (2013). Endogenous testosterone and cortisol jointly infl uence reactive aggression in women. Psychoneuroimmunology, 38 (3), 416–424.

Deuster, Patricia A.; Adera, Tilahun; & South-Paul, Jeannette. (1999). Biological, social, and behavioral factors associated with premenstrual syndrome. Archives of Family Medicine, 8 , 122–128.

Hormones and Chromosomes 105

Dickerson, Lori M.; Mazyck, Pamela J.; & Hunter, Melissa H. (2003). Premenstrual syndrome. American Family Physician, 67 , 1743–1752.

Edwards, David A.; Wetzel, Karen; & Wyner, Dana R. (2006). Intercollegiate soccer: Saliva cortisol and testos- terone are elevated during competition, and testosterone is related to status and social connectedness with teammates. Physiology and Behavior, 87 , 135–143.

Elliott, Stuart. (2011, July 22). Milk campaign ended amid social media fi restorm. New York Times, 3. Ellis, Lee; & Das, Shyamal. (2013). Delinquency, androgens, and the family: A test of evolutionary neuroandro-

genic theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 57 (8), 966–984. Epperson, C. Neill; Stiener, Meir; Hartlage, S. Ann; Eriksson, Elias; Schmidt, Peter J.; Jones, Ian; & Yonkers,

Kimberly A. (2012). Premenstrual dysphoric disorder: Evidence for a new category for DSM-5 . American Journal of Psychiatry, 169 (5), 465–475.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality . New York: Basic Books.

Flora, Stephen Ray; & Sellers, Melissa. (2003, May/June). “Premenstrual dysphoric disorder” and “premenstrual syndrome” myths. Skeptical Inquirer, 27 (3), 37–42.

Freeman, Ellen W. (2003). Premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder: Defi nitions and diag- nosis. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 28 (Suppl. 3), 25–37.

Garcia-Falgueras, Alicia; & Swaab, Dick F. (2008). A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: Rela- tionship to gender identity. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 12 (12), 3132–3146.

Giles, James. (2008). Sex hormones and sexual desire. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38 (1), 45–66. Gonda, W.; Telek, T.; Juhász, G.; Lazary, J.; Vargha, A.; & Bagdy, G. (2008). Patterns of mood change through-

out the reproductive cycle in healthy women without premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Progress in Neuro- Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 32 (8), 1782–1788.

Gorski, Roger A. (1987). Sex differences in the rodent brain: Their nature and origin. In J. M. Reinisch, L. A. Rosenblum, & S. A. Sanders (Eds.), Masculinity/femininity: Basic perspectives (pp. 37–67). New York: Oxford University Press.

Gray, John. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus . New York: HarperCollins. Harmon, Robert J.; Bender, Bruce G.; Linden, Mary G.; & Robinson, Arthur. (1998). Transition from adoles-

cence to early adulthood: Adaptation and psychiatric status of women with 47, XXX. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37 , 286–291.

Herdt, Gilbert H. (1981). Guardians of the fl utes: Idioms of masculinity . New York: McGraw-Hill. Herdt, Gilbert H. (Ed.). (1994). Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history . New

York: Zone Books. Heusel, Colleen; & Dabbs, James M., Jr. (1996, August). Testosterone predicts engineer employment status in an

oilfi eld service company . Paper presented at the 104th annual convention of the American Psychological Asso- ciation, Toronto, Canada.

Hines, Melissa; Ahmed, S. Faisal; & Hughes, Ieuan A. (2003). Psychological outcomes and gender-related development in complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 , 93–101.

Hines, Melissa; Brook, Charles; & Conway, Gerard S. (2004). Androgen and psychosexual development: Core gender identity, sexual orientation, and recalled childhood gender role behavior in women and men with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Journal of Sex Research, 41 , 75–81.

Hiort, Olaf; Thyen, Ute; & Holterhus, Paul-Martin. (2005). The basis of gender assignment in disorders of somatosexual differentiation. Hormone Research, 64 (Suppl. 2), 18–22.

Hoyer, Jana; Burmann, Inga; Kieseler, Marie-Luise; Vollrath, Florian; Hullrung, Kydia; Arelin, Katrin; . . . Sacher, Julia. (2013). Menstrual cycle phrase modulates emotional confl ict processing in women with and without premenstrual syndrome (PMS)—A pilot study. PLoS ONE, 8 (4), e59708.

Hsiao, Cheng-Cheng; Liu, Chia-Yih; & Hsiao, Mei-Chun. (2004). No correlation of depression and anxiety to plasma estrogen and progesterone levels in patients with premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 58 , 593–599.

Hubbard, Ruth; & Wald, Elijah. (1993). Exploding the gene myth . Boston: Beacon Press. Hyde, Janet Shibley; & Jaffee, Sara R. (2000). Becoming a heterosexual adult: The experiences of young women.

Journal of Social Issues, 56 , 283–296. Imperato-McGinley, Julianne; Guerrero, Luis; Gautier, Teofi lo; & Peterson, Ralph E. (1974). Steroid

5-α-reductase defi ciency in man: An inherited form of male pseudohermaphroditism. Science, 186 , 1213–1215.

106 Hormones and Chromosomes

Jimémez, Manuel; Aguilar, Raúl; & Alvero-Cruz, José R. (2012). Effects of victory and defeat on testosterone and cortisol response to competition: Evidence for same response patterns in men and women. Psychoneuro- endocrinology, 37 (9), 1577–1581.

Jordan-Young, Rebecca; & Rumiati, Raffaella I. (2012). Hardwired for sexism? Approaches to sex/gender in neuroscience. Neuroethics, 5 (3), 305–315.

Joshi, J. V.; Pandey, S. N.; Galvankar, P.; & Gogate, J. A. (2010). Prevalence of premenstrual symptoms: Prelimi- nary analysis and brief review of management strategies. Journal of Mid-Life Health, 1 (1), 30–34.

Kiesner, Jeff. (2009). Physical characteristics of the menstrual cycle and premenstrual depressive symptoms. Psychological Science, 20 (6), 763–770.

Kissling, Elizabeth Arveda. (2002). On the rag on screen: Menarche in fi lm and television. Sex Roles, 46 , 5–12. Kivlighan, Katie T.; Granger, Douglas A.; & Booth, Alan. (2005). Gender differences in testosterone and cortisol

response to competition. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30 , 58–71. Klinesmith, Jennifer; Kasser, Tim; & McAndrew, Francis T. (2006). Guns, testosterone, and aggression: An

experimental test of a mediational hypothesis. Psychological Science, 17 , 568–571. Koeske, Randi K.; & Koeske, Gary F. (1975). An attributional approach to moods and the menstrual cycle.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 , 473–478. Lagace, Martha. (2002, February 4). How to do business in Islamic countries. Working Knowledge . Retrieved

February 25, 2016, from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/how-to-do-business-in-islamic-countries Lee, Antoinette M.; So-Kum Tang, Catherine; & Chong, Catherine. (2009). A culturally sensitive study of

premenstrual and menstrual symptoms among Chinese women. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecol- ogy, 30 (2), 105–114.

Linden, Mary G.; Bender, Bruce G.; & Robinson, Arthur. (1995). Sex chromosome tetrasomy and pentasomy. Pediatrics, 96 , 672–682.

Littlewood, Roland. (2002). Three into two: The third sex in Northern Albania. Anthropology & Medicine, 9 (1), 37–50.

Mazur, Allan. (2009). A hormonal interpretation of Collins’s micro-social theory of violence. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 39 (4), 434–447.

Mazur, Tom. (2005). Gender dysphoria and gender change in androgen insensitivity or micropenis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34 , 411–421.

McFarlane, Jessica; Martin, Carol Lynn; & Williams, Tannis MacBeth. (1988). Mood fl uctuations: Women versus men and menstrual versus other cycles. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12 , 201–223.

McFarlane, Jessica Motherwell; & Williams, Tannis MacBeth. (1994). Placing premenstrual syndrome in per- spective. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18 , 339–373.

Meyer-Bahlburg, Heino F. L. (1980). Sexuality in early adolescence. In B. B. Wolman & J. Money (Eds.), Hand- book of human sexuality (pp. 61–82). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Meyer-Bahlburg, Heino F. L.; Dolezal, Curtis; Baker, Susan W.; Carlson, Ann D.; Obeid, Jihad S.; & New, Maria I. (2004). Prenatal androgenization affects gender-related behavior but not gender identity in 5–12-year-old girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33 , 97–104.

Miller, Laura J. (2002, June 1). Premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Psychiatric Times, 19 (6), 54+. Miller, Merry N.; & Miller, Barney E. (2001). Premenstrual exacerbations of mood disorders. Psychopharmacol-

ogy Bulletin, 35 , 135–149. Money, John. (1986). Venuses penuses: Sexology, sexosophy, and exigency theory . Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Montoya, Estrella; Terburg, David; Bos, Peter; & van Honk, Jack. (2012). Testosterone, cortisol, and serotonin

as key regulators of social aggression: A review and theoretical perspective. Motivation & Emotion, 36 (1), 65–73.

Murat, Laure. (2005). The invention of the neuter. Diogenes, 52 (4), 61–72. Nanda, Serena. (2000). Gender diversity: Crosscultural variations . Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. O’Brien, Patrick; Shaughn, Michael; Bäckström, Torbjorn; Brown, Candace; Dennerstein, Lorraine; Endicott,

Jean; . . . Yonkers, Kimberley. (2011). Towards a consensus on diagnostic criteria, measurement and trial design of the premenstrual disorders: The ISPMD Montreal consensus. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 14 (1), 13–21.

Oettel, M.; & Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (2004). Progesterone: The forgotten hormone in men? Aging Male, 7 (3), 236–257.

Hormones and Chromosomes 107

Pajer, Kathleen; Tabbah, Rhonda; Gardner, William; Rubin, Robert T.; Czambel, R. Kenneth; & Wang, Yun. (2006). Adrenal androgen and gonadal hormone levels in adolescent girls with conduct disorder. Psychoneu- roendocrinology, 31 (10), 1245–1256.

Parlee, Mary Brown. (1973). The premenstrual syndrome. Psychological Bulletin, 83 , 454–465. Parma, Pietro; Radi, Orietta; Vidal, Valerie; Chaboissier, Marie Christine; Dellambra, Elena; Valentina, Stella; . . .

Camerino, Giovanna. (2006). R-spondin1 is essential in sex determination, skin differentiation and malig- nancy. Nature Genetics, 38 (11), 1304–1309.

Parsons, Rhea. (2004). The portrayal of PMS on television sitcoms . Retrieved September 6, 2015, from http:// academinist.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/010104Parsons_PMS.pdf

Peper, Jiska S.; Brouwer, Rachel M.; Schnack, Hugo G.; van Baal, G. Caroline; van Leeuwen, Marieke; van den Berg, Stéphanie M.; . . . Hulshoff Pol, Hilleke E. (2009). Sex steroids and brain structure in pubertal boys and girls. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34 (3), 332–342.

Potter, Julia; Bouyer, Jean; Trussell, James; & Moreau, Caroline. (2009). Premenstrual syndrome prevalence and fl uctuation over time: Results from a French population-based survey. Journal of Women’s Health, 18 (1), 31–39.

Qiao, Mingqi; Ahang, Huiyun; Liu, Huimin; Luo, Songping; Wang, Tianfang; Zhang, Junlong; & Ji, Lijin. (2012). Prevalence of premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder in a population-based sample in China. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology & Reproductive Biology, 162 (1), 83–86.

Ramirez, J. Martin. (2003). Hormones and aggression in childhood and adolescence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8 , 621–644.

Ranke, Michael B.; & Saenger, Paul. (2001). Turner’s syndrome. Lancet, 358 , 309–314. Reddy, Gayatri. (2005). With respect to sex: Negotiating hijra identity in South India . Chicago: University of Chi-

cago Press. Richardson, Sarah S. (2012). Sexing the X: How the X became the “female chromosome”. Signs, 37 (4), 909–933. Romans, Sarah; Clarkson, Rose; Einstein, Gillian; Petrovic, Michele; & Stewart, Donna. (2012). Mood and

menstrual cycle: A review of prospective data studies. Gender Medicine, 9 (5), 361–384. Roscoe, Will. (1993). How to become a berdache: Toward a unifi ed analysis of gender diversity. In G. Herdt

(Ed.), Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history (pp. 329–372). New York: Zone Books.

Schnall, Simone; Abrahamson, Adelpha; & Laird, James D. (2002). Premenstrual syndrome and misattribution: A self-perception, individual differences perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24 , 215–228.

Sell, Ingrid M. (2004). Third gender: A qualitative study of the experience of individuals who identify as being neither man nor women. Psychotherapy Patient, 13 (1/2), 131–145.

Simpson, Joe Leigh. (2001, November). Androgen insensitivity. Contemporary OB/GYN, 46 (11), 73+. Skatssoon, Judy. (2005). Do men cause PMS? Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://www.abc.net.au/health/

features/stories/2005/12/08/1836110.htm Sommer, Iris E. C.; Aleman, André; Bouma, Anke; & Kahn, René S. (2004). Do women really have more bilat-

eral language representation than men? A meta-analysis of functional imaging studies. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 127 , 1845–1852.

Spinney, Laura. (2011, March 5). Venus and Mars collide. New Scientist, 209 (2802), 42–45. Springer, Sally P.; & Deutsch, Georg. (1998). Left brain, right brain (5th ed.). New York: Freeman. Steiner, Meir; & Li, Tina. (2013). Luteal phase and symptom-onset dosing of SSRIs/SNRIs in the treatment of

premenstrual dysphoria: Clinical evidence and rationale. CNS Drugs, 27 (8), 583–589. Strine, Tara W.; Chapman, Daniel P.; & Ahluwalia, Indu B. (2005). Menstrual-related problems and psychologi-

cal distress among women in the United States. Journal of Women’s Health, 14 , 316–323. Sullivan, Michele G. (2003, February 1). Revised guidelines address hypogonadism in men. Family Practice,

33 (3), 34. Swaab, D. F.; & Fliers, E. (1985). A sexually dimorphic nucleus in the human brain. Science, 228 , 1112–1115. Swaab, D. F.; Gooren, L.J.G.; & Hofman, M. A. (1995). Brain research, gender, and sexual orientation. Journal

of Homosexuality, 28 , 283–301. Szollos, Alex; Thyrum, Elizabeth; & Martin, Betty. (2006). College women’s perceptions of anxiety and men-

strual distress across the menstrual cycle. College Student Journal, 40 , 186–194. Thornton, L. (2013). ‘Time of the month’ on Twitter: Taboo, stereotype and bonding in a noholds-barred public

arena. Sex Roles, 68 (1–2), 41–54.

108 Hormones and Chromosomes

Thornton, Arland; & Young-DeMarco, Linda. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 , 1009–1037.

Ussher, Jane M. (2013). Diagnosing diffi cult women and pathologising femininity: Gender bias in psychiatric nosology. Feminism & Psychology, 23 (1), 63–69.

Ussher, Jane M.; & Perz, Janette. (2013). PMS as a process of negotiation: Women’s experience and management of premenstrual distress. Psychology & Health, 28 (8), 909-927.

Van Bokhoven, Irene; van Goozen, Stephanie H. M.; van Engeland, Herman; Schaal, Benoist; Arseneault, Lou- ise; Séguin, Jean R.; . . . Tremblay, Richard E. (2006). Salivary testosterone and aggression, delinquency, and social dominance in a population-based study of adolescent males. Hormones & Behavior, 50 (1), 118–125.

van Honk, Jack; Harmon-Jones, Eddie; Morgan, Barak E.; & Schutter, Dennis J. L. G. (2010). Explosive minds: The triple imbalance hypothesis of reactive aggression. Journal of Personality, 78 (1), 67–94.

Wade, Lisa. (2013). The new science of sex differences. Sociology Compass, 7 (4), 278–293. Wallentin, Mikkel. (2009). Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain &

Language, 108 (3), 175–183. Wattendorf, Daniel J.; & Muenke, Maximilian. (2005). Klinefelter syndrome. American Family Physician, 72,

2559–2562. Weisz, George; & Knaapen, Loes. (2009). Diagnosing and treating premenstrual syndrome in fi ve western

nations. Social Science & Medicine, 68 (8), 1498–1505. Wieringa, Saskia E. (1994). The Zuni man-woman. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 , 348–351. Witkin, Herman A.; Mednick, Sarnoff A.; Schulsinger, Fini; Bakkestrøm, Eskild; Christiansen, Karlo O.; Good-

enough, Donald R.; . . . Stocking, Martha. (1976). Criminality in XYY and XXY men. Science, 193 , 547–555.

Wolfson, S.; & Neave, N. (2004). Effects of venue on testosterone, territoriality and performance in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22 , 577–578.

Yonkers, K. A.; Pearlstein, K.; & Rosenheck, R. A. (2003). Premenstrual disorders: Bridging research and clinical reality. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 6 , 287–292.

Ziomkiewicz, A.; Pawlowski, B.; Ellison, P. T.; Lipson, S. F.; Thune, I.; & Jasienska, G. (2012). Higher luteal progesterone is associated with low levels of premenstrual aggressive behavior and fatigue. Biological Psychology, 91 (3), 376–382.

Headline: “Code Pink,” Mother Jones, September/October, 2009

Journalist Lauren Sandler (2009) reported that when her daughter was born, she was inun- dated with pink gifts—clothing, toys, accessories—all pink. Sandler grew up during the 1970s, when the fashion was for baby clothes in primary colors that were appropriate for either sex. She was somewhat startled by the degree to which clothing for babies is currently so sharply gendered by the pinks and blues. Despite the current stereotypes, the fi rst associa- tion of color with gender was the opposite; until the 1930s, pink was associated with boys and blue with girls.

The problem is not the colors or which color is paired with which sex, it is the associa- tion of a color with a gender and the messages that this association conveys. With gender color-coding, a baby’s sex is apparent to everyone at a glance, and everyone is able to use gender stereotypes to treat male and female babies differently. Children also notice gender-related cues at a young age and internalize this information. By age 3 or 4, most boys will protest loudly if the possibility of a pink shirt comes along, but many girls have comparable tantrums if one of their pink, frilly dresses is not available (Halim, Ruble, & Amodio, 2011). Color becomes a visible signal of gender and a prominent association with gender roles.

The defi nition of a gender role is the socially signifi cant activities that men and women engage in with different frequencies. The origin of the concept of role was not within social science; the term can be traced to theater, where an actor’s part was printed on a roll of paper. The word role was French for roll, and this usage is particularly meaningful, if we consider that the role, or the part a person plays, differs from the person. Therefore, gender roles are like scripts that men and women follow to fulfi ll their appropriate masculine or feminine parts. Social scientists use the term role to mean expected, socially encouraged patterns of behavior exhibited by individuals in specifi c situations.

Does the color pink make that much difference in learning about gender? These images and their power to shape attitudes and behavior are important for social learning theory, one of the theories of gender development. But gender identity , which is how individuals come to identify themselves as male or female, is more complex than stereotypical associations. How that process occurs is unquestionably important but also controversial, and several very different theories attempt to explain how individuals come to accept themselves as female or male. Social learning theory emphasizes the importance of models and experiences, but the psychodynamic approach does not look to role models to explain the development of gender identity. Gender schema theory holds that the process involves much more than modeling. Each of these theories has advocates and supporting evidence, which requires an examination of the theories and the evidence.

Theories of Gender Development 5

110 Theories of Gender Development

The Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development

Sigmund Freud, a Viennese neurologist, devised a theory that emphasizes the differences between personality development and functioning of men and women. Developed during the last part of the 19th century, Freud’s theory emphasized the dynamic forces that inter- act in forming personality, especially those originating in the unconscious , a region of the mind that functions beyond conscious personal awareness. His theory was controversial and remains so, partly because his theory casts women as inferior to men. However, his theory has also been extremely infl uential in Western society.

Freud’s View of Gender Identity Development

Freud hypothesized that personality development proceeds through a series of psychosexual stages . Starting at birth, these stages continue through adulthood in a sequence named according to the regions of the body that were most important for sexual gratifi cation. The early stages were the most important for personality development, and this emphasis was the basis of the belief that early childhood is a critical time for personality formation.

Freud termed the fi rst psychosexual stage the oral stage , during which babies receive sexual gratifi cation from oral activities. During the anal stage , the child receives pleasure from excre- tory functions. The phallic stage begins in children around 3 or 4 years and is the fi rst of Freud’s psychosexual stages that describes a different course of personality development for boys and girls (Freud, 1933/1964). Freud believed that the focus on genital activity resulted in a sexual attraction to the parent of the other sex and an increasing desire to have sex with this parent.

These dynamics occur on an unconscious level, outside of children’s awareness, and set the stage for the Oedipus complex . Freud used the Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex as an analogy for the interactions that occur within families during the phallic stage. According to the story, the oracle prophesied that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother, and this prophecy came true. Freud hypothesized that all boys feel aggression directed toward their fathers and sexual longing for their mothers, which sets up a situation for the development of gender identity.

Boys in the phallic stage concentrate on their genitals and prize their penises. They notice the anatomical differences between girls and boys, which leads them to realize that everyone does not have a penis (Freud, 1925/1989). The realization that girls lack penises leads boys to believe that penises must be removable. This belief combines with their perception of their fathers’ growing hostility to create the castration complex , the belief that castration will be the punishment for their attraction to their mother. Boys believe that girls have suffered this punishment and are thus mutilated, inferior creatures.

To resolve these feelings, boys must end the competition with their fathers and deny their sexual wishes for their mothers. Both goals can be met through identifi cation with their fathers. This identifi cation accomplishes the goals of removing their sexual attraction to their mothers (thus removing castration anxiety) and replacing the feelings of hostility for their fathers with identifi cation with their fathers. Thus through identifi cation with their fathers, boys become masculine and develop a sexual identity that includes sexual attraction to women.

Freud hypothesized a slightly different resolution to the Oedipus complex in girls. Dur- ing the phallic stage, girls also notice the anatomical differences between the sexes. Aware that they do not have penises, girls become envious of boys and experience penis envy and feelings of inferiority (Freud, 1925/1989). Fathers become the object of their affection, but girls cannot experience the castration complex in the same way that boys do; girls have no

Theories of Gender Development 111

penises to lose. Furthermore, girls hold their mothers responsible for their lack of penises and develop feelings of hostility toward them. Girls must still surrender their sexual desires for their fathers and identify with their mothers, but the process is not as quick or as complete as it is for boys (Freud, 1933/1964).

After the resolution of the Oedipus complex, children enter the latency stage , during which little overt sexual activity occurs. This stage lasts until puberty, when physiological changes bring about a reawakening of sexuality and entry into the genital stage . During the genital stage, the regions of the body that have furnished sexual pleasure during childhood are now secondary to genital pleasure obtained through intercourse.

Table 5.1 shows Freud’s psychosexual stages and the types of gender-related differences that he hypothesized for these stages. Development is similar for girls and boys in several stages but differs drastically in the phallic stage. Freud also believed that women have a more diffi cult time achieving a mature sexual relationship than men. He described the sexuality of the phallic stage, with its emphasis on masturbation, as immature sexuality that should be replaced in the genital stage with mature, heterosexual intercourse. For men, such activity involves their penises, but women must redirect their sexual impulses away from their clitorises and toward their vaginas. Freud knew that his theory was uncomplimentary to women, because his female associates, such as Karen Horney, told him so (Gay, 1988).

Horney’s Theory of Gender

Horney was one of the fi rst German women to enter medical school, where she specialized in psychiatry. After completing a training analysis with one of Freud’s close associates, she began to attend seminars and to write papers on psychoanalysis (Feist, Feist, & Roberts, 2013). Soon, however, Horney became a vocal critic of Freud’s theory of personality, especially concerning gender differences in personality development. Horney reexamined Freud’s concepts of penis envy, inferiority feelings in women, the masculinity complex (the expression of masculine behavior and attitudes in women), and masochism (deriving pleasure from pain).

Table 5.1 Freud’s Psychosexual Stages and Gender-Related Differences in Each Stage

Stage Gender-Related Difference

Oral None

Anal None

Phallic Boys notice that they have penises and that girls do not Girls notice that boys have penises and that they do not Oedipus complex Boys experience extreme trauma connected with the Oedipus complex, undergo stronger identifi cation with their fathers, and develop a stronger sense of morality Girls experience less Oedipal trauma, undergo weaker identifi cation with their mothers, and develop a weaker sense of morality

Latency None

Genital Women must transfer their sexual pleasure from their clitorises to their vaginas, making mature sexuality more diffi cult for them Men’s penises remain the center of their sexuality, making mature sexuality easier for them

112 Theories of Gender Development

Horney also pointed out the masculine bias in psychoanalytic theory (Miletic, 2002; Quinn, 1987) but stayed within the framework of psychodynamic theory, as shown by her acceptance of the unconscious as a motivating force in personality, her emphasis on sexual feelings and events in personality development, and her belief in the importance of early childhood experiences for personality formation. She differed from Freud in her interpreta- tion of the signifi cance of the events of early childhood and her growing belief in the impor- tance of social rather than instinctual forces in personality development.

Part of Horney’s reinterpretation of psychoanalysis was an alternative view of the notion of penis envy, the feelings of envy that girls have when they discover that boys’ penises are larger than their own clitorises. Horney argued that penis envy was a symbolic longing for the social prestige and position that men experience, rather than a literal physical desire for penises. Indeed, she hypothesized that men envy women’s capability to reproduce and proposed the concept of womb envy . She interpreted the male strivings for achievement as overcompensation for their lack of ability to create by giving birth.

Horney believed that men fear and attribute evil to women because men feel inadequate when comparing themselves to women. To feel more adequate, men must see women as infe- rior, which keeps men from contending with their own feelings of inferiority. She explained that men still retain the feelings of inferiority that originated with the perception of the small size of their penises during childhood, when they initially noticed them. Therefore, men go through life needing to prove their masculinity, and failures make men constantly vulnerable to feelings of inferiority. This resentment can lead men to attempt to diminish women, and these attempts may succeed, leaving women with feelings of inferiority. Therefore, female inferiority originates with male insecurities rather than, as Freud hypothesized, with the female perception of inferior genitals. These female feelings of inferiority are perpetuated by men’s behavior toward women and by the masculine bias in society.

Table 5.2 shows the points of agreement and disagreement between Horney’s and Freud’s psychodynamic theories. As this table shows, both theories accept the importance of uncon- scious forces and early childhood experiences. However, the difference in their interpretations of the importance and causes of other events makes the two theories substantially different.

Table 5.2 Points of Agreement and Disagreement in Horney’s and Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theories

Concept Horney’s Theory Freud’s Theory

Existence of unconscious Yes Yes

Importance of early childhood experiences

Yes Yes

Gender differences in personality Yes Yes

Source of differences Social Biological

Feelings of envy for other gender Men envy women’s ability to give birth

Women envy men’s penises

Feelings of inferiority Constant need to perform sexually leads men to feel inferior

Lack of penises leads women to feel inferior

Masculinity complex Driven by girls’ lack of acceptance of femininity and identifi cation with their fathers

Driven by girls’ feeling of inferiority

Masochism Socially determined part of development that is abnormal for women as well as men

Biologically determined, inevitable part of feminine development; abnormal in men

Theories of Gender Development 113

Contemporary Psychodynamic Theories of Gender Development

Freud’s theory of personality appeared during the late 19th and early 20th centuries in a Victorian culture that viewed women as passive, dependent, and intellectually inferior to men. This view of women was easy for Freud to accept, but Freud’s view dominated for 50 years.

Discontent with the Freudian view emerged during the 1970s, when feminist scholars turned their attention to gender development (Bell, 2004). Some created psychodynamic theories of personality and gender development that not only removed the objectionable elements of Freud’s theory but also created revisions of his theory that include a positive view of women. Sociologist Nancy Chodorow (1978, 1979, 1994, 2005) and psychologist Ellyn Kaschak (1992) have formulated psychodynamic theories that are signifi cant depar- tures from earlier views. Chodorow’s theory proposes a progression of development that gives women advantages, and Kaschak’s theory replaces the emphasis on male psychological development with a woman-centered view of personality. Both theories are examples of feminist psychoanalytic theory.

Chodorow’s Emphasis on Mothering

Like Freud, Chodorow (1979) expressed pessimism about any potential equality between men and women. Unlike Freud—who concentrated on the perception of anatomical differences—Chodorow’s reasons for believing in the continuation of inequality focused on the early experiences of children in relation to their mother. Chodorow’s theory concentrates on the pre-Oedipal period during early childhood, before the Oedipus complex, and cen- ters on the process of being mothered by a woman.

Although Chodorow (1978) acknowledged that women are not unique in their capacity to care for infants, she also granted that mothers (or other women) provide most nurturing, and fathers (or other men) do little caregiving. Thus, Chodorow explained how this early relation- ship between mother and infant makes a permanent imprint on personality development—an imprint that differs for boys and girls. Chodorow described babies as having no sense of self versus other people or the world; infants are one with the world, and most of their world is their mother. The early mother–daughter relationship is closer than the mother–son relation- ship, because mothers and daughters are of the same sex. Infants have no initial perception of their sex or gender, but mothers always know about the sex of their infants and treat girls and boys differently.

Chodorow (1978) hypothesized that when children start to develop a sense of self and separate from their mothers, events differ for girls and boys. Girls have an easier task in developing a sense of self because they have already identifi ed with their mothers. This identifi cation gives them an advantage in developing a separate identity, because this identity will likely be feminine and much like their mothers. Boys, on the other hand, have a more diffi cult time in developing separate identities because they too have already identifi ed with their mothers. To become masculine, boys must reject the femininity of their mothers and develop an identity that is not only separate but also different. Thus, boys have a more diffi cult task than girls in accomplishing these developmental goals of separation and identity.

But according to Chodorow, girls never separate from their mothers as completely as boys do. The gender similarity is something that both mothers and daughters know, and this similarity infl uences both the mother and the daughter. One study (Benenson, Morash, & Petrakos, 1998) confi rmed the difference in emotional closeness between daughters and sons, as Chodorow’s theory hypothesizes. Boys must work to accomplish their separation, even

114 Theories of Gender Development

with the aid of their mothers. This effort extracts a price. Chodorow (1978) described the aftermath of boys’ separation in terms of their rejection of all femininity and the develop- ment of fear and mistrust of the feminine. Chodorow thus explained the almost worldwide denigration of women by men as a by-product of boys’ efforts to distinguish and separate themselves from their mothers. On the other hand, girls have no such need, and they accept their mothers and the feminine role without the turbulence that boys experience. Girls grow into women and reproduce their early relationships with their mothers in their own mothering.

Table 5.3 shows the differences between Chodorow’s feminist psychoanalytic theory and traditional psychoanalytic theory. Notice that the differences lie not only in the outcomes but

Photo 5.1 According to Chodorow’s theory, girls are similar to their mothers, which eases the course of their gender development.

Table 5.3 Differences between Chodorow’s Feminist Psychodynamic Theory and Traditional Freudian Theory

Stages Gender-Related Outcome

Chodorow’s Theory Pre-Oedipal stages Boys work toward separation from mother, rejecting femininity. Girls retain connectedness with mother, becoming feminine

Oedipus confl ict Gender differences have already emerged

Freud’s Theory Pre-Oedipal stages No gender-related differences emerge Oedipus confl ict Family dynamics and perception of differences in genitals

prompt personality differences

Theories of Gender Development 115

also in the stage of development that each theory hypothesizes to be important in personality development and in gender-related differences.

Thus, Chodorow’s psychodynamic theory represents an alternative to Freud’s theory. Although she retained the emphasis on early childhood, Chodorow concentrated on the pre-Oedipal period and on the early infant–mother relationship. She also hypothesized a different course of personality development for boys than for girls, but in Chodorow’s theory girls have an easier time in developing gender. Their similarity to their mothers makes femi- ninity an easier identity to develop than boys, who must fi nd ways to separate themselves from their mothers and fi nd masculine gender identity.

Kaschak’s Antigone Phase

Like Freud, Ellyn Kaschak’s (1992) psychodynamic theory drew from the Oedipus legend in the Greek plays by Sophocles. Kaschak argued that the minor changes Freud made to accommodate women in his female Oedipus complex were inadequate. Instead, Kaschak casts female personality development in terms of Antigone, Oedipus’s daughter (and half- sister). In Sophocles’s plays, Antigone was the daughter of Oedipus and Jocasta (who was Oedipus’s mother). After Oedipus learned of his incest with Jocasta, he destroyed his eyes, and Antigone then became her father’s guide and caretaker. Antigone sacrifi ced an inde- pendent life to care for her blind father, and he considered it his right to have this level of devotion. Kaschak (1992) interpreted personality development of men and women in similar terms: “As Oedipus’ dilemma became a symbol for the dilemma of the son, so might that of Antigone be considered representative of the inevitable fate of the good daughter in the patriarchal family” (p. 60).

Men grow and develop in societies that allow them power, both in those societies and in their families. In taking this power, men come to consider women their possessions. Women grow and develop in situations of subservience in which they are men’s possessions, and women’s lives and personalities refl ect this status. Kaschak hypothesized that many men and women never resolve these complexes because the social structure perpetuates differential power for women and men, encouraging both to adhere to these different roles.

For men, an unresolved Oedipus complex results in treating women as extensions of themselves rather than as independent people. With this sense of entitlement, men tend to seek power and sex in self-centered ways that may be destructive to others, such as family violence, incest, and rape. Consistent with Kaschak’s formulation, Michael Johnson (1995; Johnson & Leone, 2005) researched family violence and proposed that some men engage in systematic violence within their families because they feel that they have the right to do so. He called this form of family violence patriarchal terrorism .

When women fail to resolve the Antigone phase, they allow themselves to be extensions of others rather than striving for independence. Girls learn that men are important and their own wishes are less so, thus allowing this belief to limit their lives. Among those limits are restrictions on what women may do in the world and conforming to a limited sexuality, all defi ned and controlled by men. In addition, women learn to deny their physicality and try to make their bodies invisible, and this denial can be expressed in terms of eating disorders. These limits can lead to feelings of self-hatred and shame and the need to form relationships with others to feel self-worth.

Women who successfully resolve the Antigone phase achieve separation from their fathers and other men to become independent people. This independence allows them to form relationships with women, which Kaschak believes to be a problem for women who have not resolved the Antigone phase. In their relationships with men, women who have resolved these issues are able to stop making men central to their lives and can

116 Theories of Gender Development

form interdependent, fl exible relationships. Men who resolve their Oedipus complex relinquish their grandiosity and drive for power, see women as whole persons rather than possessions, and come to see themselves as individuals who act within boundaries and limits, rather than as kings. Table 5.4 shows the four possibilities in Kaschak’s view of personality development—men and women who have and have not resolved major developmental issues.

Is feminist psychodynamic theory an improvement over traditional psychoanalytic theory? All versions of psychoanalytic theory have the shortcoming of relying heavily on unconscious mental processes to explain important events in personality development, which poses prob- lems for scientifi c testability. Therefore, any psychoanalytic theory shares the problem of providing adequately observable research evidence.

Both traditional and modern psychoanalytic theories emphasize the importance and inevi- tability of gender differences, but other theories of gender development do not share this view. Several theories concentrate on the social factors in children’s lives to explain how gen- der develops. The infl uence of social factors forms the foundation for social learning theory, cognitive developmental theory, and gender schema theory.

Social Learning Theory and Gender

Social learning theory explains gender development in the same way that it explains other types of learned behaviors, by classifying gender development as learned behaviors. This pos- sibility was what distressed Lauren Sandler (2009); if gender development proceeds through learning gender-related associations, then the pinks and blues may convey messages that encourage stereotyping.

Social learning theory emphasizes the infl uence of the social environment, including the media. Biological sex differences furnish the basis for gender identity, but social learning theorists contend that a great many other characteristics and behaviors that have no rela- tion to sex have been tied to gender, such as the colors pink and blue. In this view, gender identity development is determined by social factors (Bandura, 1986; Bandura & Bussey, 2004; Bussey & Bandura, 1999).

Table 5.4 Possible Outcomes of Personality Development According to Kaschak

Not Resolved Resolved

Men (Oedipal phase) Patriarchal Nonpatriarchal Gaining power a major goal Gaining power not a major issue See women as extensions of self—they have the right to have women serve them

See women as independent

Sexually self-centered Sexually unselfi sh

Women (Antigone phase) Accept subservience Reject subservient role Passive and dependent Assertive and independent Accept male-defi ned sexuality Defi ne their own sexuality Deny their own needs, including physical needs

Accept and express their own needs

Cannot form friendships with other women

Form friendships with other women

Theories of Gender Development 117

The social learning approach is a variation of traditional learning theory, which includes the principles of operant conditioning developed by B. F. Skinner. Operant conditioning is a form of learning based on applying reinforcement and punishment . A reinforcer is any stimulus that increases the probability that a behavior will recur. A behavior is more likely to be repeated in the future if that person (or animal) has received a reinforcer after performing the behavior in the past. On the other hand, a person is less likely to repeat a behavior in the future if that person has been punished after performing the behavior. Punishment is any stimulus that decreases the probability that a behavior will recur. The reinforcements and punishments in each individual’s history contribute to present and future behavior. Thus, future behavior can be predicted from past experience. Table 5.5 gives an example of how personal experience of reinforcements and punishments can work to mold gender-related behaviors.

Traditional learning theorists reject all concepts of internal mental processes and termi- nology in their explanations of behavior, relying on objectively observable behaviors, but social learning theory extends learning theory to include cognitive processes. This addition changes the focus of learning by emphasizing the importance of observation. Social learning theorists consider observation more important than reinforcement in the process of learning. To these theorists, learning is cognitive, whereas performance is behavioral. The social learn- ing approach thus separates learning from performing learned behaviors, and it investigates factors that affect both (Mischel, 1966, 1993).

Observation provides many opportunities for learning, including the learning of gender- related behaviors among children (Bandura & Bussey, 2004; Bussey, 2011; Bussey & Ban- dura, 1999). The social environment provides children with examples of male and female models who perform different behaviors, including behaviors that vary by gender. The mod- els that infl uence children include mothers, fathers, and siblings, but also many others, both real people and media images of boys, girls, men, women, and cartoon characters. In observing these many male and female models, children have abundant opportunities to learn. However, not all models have the same infl uence for all children, and not all behaviors are equally likely to be imitated.

The differential infl uence of models relates to their power or prestige as well as to the observer’s attention and perception of the similarity between model and observer. Children tend to be more infl uenced by powerful models than by models with less power (Bussey & Bandura, 1984), but children are also more infl uenced by models who are similar to them. This similarity extends to gender, with children more likely to imitate same-sex models than other-sex models and models of similar age (Grace, David, & Ryan, 2008).

Table 5.5 Results of Reinforcement and Punishment for Gender-Related Behaviors

Behavior Consequences Result

Little girl plays with tea set Reinforcement: Her mother praises her toy choice

Girl plays with tea set again

Little girl plays with truck Punishment: Her mother scolds her for choosing a truck

Girl does not play with truck again

Little boy plays with tea set Punishment: His mother scolds him for choosing a tea set

Boy does not play with tea set again

Little boy plays with truck Reinforcement: His mother praises his toy choice

Boy plays with truck again

118 Theories of Gender Development

Observing the consequences of a behavior is another important factor in performing a learned behavior. If people observe a behavior being rewarded, then they are more likely to perform that behavior than if they see the same behavior punished or unrewarded. Social learning theorists believe that reinforcement and punishment are not essential for learning, which occurs through observation. Instead, reinforcement and punishment are more impor- tant to performance, affecting the likelihood that a learned behavior will be performed in circumstances similar to those observed.

Children develop in an atmosphere in which they are exposed to models of gender- stereotypic behaviors “in the home, in schools, on playgrounds, in readers and storybooks, and in representations of society on the television screens of every household” (Bandura, 1986,

Photo 5.2 Parents are powerful models for developing gender-related behaviors.

Theories of Gender Development 119

p. 93). These presentations do two things. First, all children are exposed to both female and male models, so all children learn the gender-related behaviors associated with both genders. Second, children learn which behaviors are gender-appropriate for them. Children learn that certain behaviors are rewarded for girls but not for boys; for other behaviors, the rewards come to boys and not to girls.

For example, children see girls rewarded for playing with dolls, whereas they see boys discouraged and ridiculed for this same behavior. Children see boys rewarded for playing with toy guns, but they may see girls discouraged from that behavior. Both boys and girls learn how to play with dolls and guns, but they are not equally likely to do so due to the differential rewards they have seen others receive. Figure 5.1 illustrates some possibilities of this process.

Their learning is not based on observation of merely a few models; the world is fi lled with examples of men and women who are rewarded and punished for gender-related behaviors. The portrayals of gender-related behavior are especially stereotypical in the media (Lauzen, Dozier, & Horan, 2008; Signorielli, 2004) and offer a multitude of sexist examples for children to model (see According to the Media and According to the Research). Therefore, children may behave in ways different from their parents, including expressing sexist views that their parents do not endorse.

Not all observed consequences are consistent with each other; some people are rewarded and others punished for the same behavior. But consistency is not necessary for children to learn gender-related behaviors (Bandura, 1986). Children observe many models; they notice the consistencies among the behaviors of some models and start to overlook the exceptions. As more same-sex models exhibit a behavior, the more likely children are to connect that behavior with one or the other sex. Through this process, behaviors come to be gendered, although these behaviors may have no direct relationship to sex. Children learn to pay attention to individuals’ sex and the activities associated with each, and thus they become selective in their modeling.

When Children Observe Female Model Male Model Playing with Dolls

Take good care Dolls are for girlsof that baby

= = Encouragement/ Discouragement/ Reward Punishment

Most Likely Future Behavior

Girls Boys

Play with dolls Avoid dolls

Female Model Male Model Playing with Guns

Guns are for boys Good shot for a beginner

= = Discouragement/ Encouragement/ Punishment Reward

Most Likely Future Behavior

Girls Boys

Avoid guns Play with guns

Figure 5.1 Results of Observing Models of Gendered Behaviors

120 Theories of Gender Development

According to the Media . . . Girls are in the Background in Children’s Television

Children’s television programming has always been oriented toward boys. Pro- gramming executives believe that boys will not watch cartoons with female lead characters but that girls will watch programs with male lead characters (Thomp- son & Zerbinos, 1995). Early analyses of cartoon programming indicated that male characters outnumbered female characters by more than three to one. An analysis of American cartoons over 65 years (Klein & Shiffman, 2009) indicated that female characters had always been underrepresented, but their presence had increased since the 1960s. In both analyses, female characters displayed stereo- typically feminine behavior, and cartoons tend to show girls and women in tra- ditional roles.

Cartoon programming changed from the 1970s to the 1990s, going from an emphasis on exaggerated tripping, falling, and action to those with continu- ing adventures (Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995). Female characters became more independent, assertive, intelligent, competent, and responsible and less emo- tional and tentative. The male characters continued to behave in stereotypical ways for men, giving orders and being brave and aggressive. Female superhero characters are also brave and aggressive, but they are less common than male superheroes and show some stereotypically feminine behavior, such as emotion- ality (Baker & Raney, 2007).

Not all programming aimed at children portrays female characters in stereotypical terms. In programs for middle school children, female and male scientists were por- trayed as having similar characteristics in terms of their professional positions, marital status, and parental status (Long et al., 2010). Not surprisingly, TV scientists were presented as intelligent, and the female scientists were as smart as the male scientists. The equality was restricted to characteristics, however; these programs featured fewer female scientists.

Television advertising oriented toward children also has a history of biased gender portrayals, but changes have also occurred (Larson, 2001). The number of girls in commercials now equals the number of boys, but girls are still in the background in terms of activities. The advertisements oriented toward boys contain more action, competition, control, and destruction, whereas those oriented toward girls contain more limited activity and more nurturing (Johnson & Young, 2002). Commercials convey clear messages about which toys are for girls and which are for boys; few advertisements offer attractive portrayals of children deviating from gender stereo- types (Pike & Jennings, 2005). All of these presentations tend to leave girls in the background.

Theories of Gender Development 121

Children experience many sources of modeling and reinforcement, and these sources infl uence the development of gender-related behaviors (Bussey, 2011). Beginning before birth, parents often have some preference for a boy or a girl—more often for a boy. When their children are infants, parents interact differently with their sons and daughters. For example, young children do not show strong preferences for gender-typical toys, but when parents choose toys for play, they tend to pick masculine toys for boys and feminine or neutral toys for girls (Wood, Des- marais, & Gugula, 2002). Parents are not alone in these preferences; in one study (Campenni, 1999), adults who were not parents showed even more stereotypical toy choices than parents did—recall Lauren Sandler’s friends who inundated her with pink everything for her baby girl.

Studies that observe parental interactions with children have confi rmed gender differences in treatment. Mothers and fathers created different amounts of emotional availability during interactions with their toddlers, and the sex of the child also infl uenced the situation (Lovas, 2005). Sons were involved in less positive interactions than daughters. An early study that

According to the Research . . . Gender Depictions on Television Convey a Message

Cartoons and advertisements on children’s television tend to portray gender-related behaviors in stereotypical ways, selling not only products but also gender ideology (Lewin-Jones & Mitra, 2009). Television provides many more opportunities for chil- dren to observe stereotypical gender behaviors than actual experience does (Bussey & Bandura, 1999), and television has become more prominent than parents in the lives of many children (Burguera, 2011). Children not only notice but are also infl uenced by gender portrayals in cartoons and in advertisements; however, some evidence hints that television can easily send more positive messages.

Interviews with children between ages 4 and 9 years (Thompson & Zerbinos, 1997) showed that 78% noticed that cartoons contained more male than female characters, and 68% noticed that boys talked more in cartoons. Of elementary school children who watched the Pokémon cartoons, less than 50% could name a female Pokémon character, and children were much more likely to name a male than a female character or trainer as a favorite (Ogletree, Martinez, Turner, & Mason, 2004).

Gender-related perceptions of cartoon characters infl uenced 4- to 9-year-old chil- dren’s thoughts about their careers (Thompson & Zerbinos, 1997). Children who noticed the gender differences in the cartoon characters’ behavior tended to be more likely to envision themselves in a gender-stereotypical job than did children who were less aware of the gender portrayals in cartoons. This tendency was stronger for boys than for girls. In contrast, the children who noticed characters behaving in nonstereo- typical ways were the ones who were more likely to see themselves in nontraditional jobs. This tendency applied to both girls and boys.

Children exposed to gender-stereotypical television advertising for boys’ toys were more likely to say that the toys were appropriate for boys rather than for either boys or girls (Pike & Jennings, 2005). However, changing the gender of the child in the adver- tisement to a girl was successful in prompting signifi cantly more children to say that the advertised toy could be for either girls or boys, but boys were affected more strongly.

Therefore, the gendered presentation of characters in cartoons has the power to do harm. Children notice and are infl uenced by these stereotypical presentations, and young children take this information into account when they imagine themselves in an occupation. But counterstereotypical portrayals have the power to alter stereotypes.

122 Theories of Gender Development

examined toy choices (Fagot & Hagan, 1991) found larger differences than a more recent study (Wood et al., 2002) on the topic, but the tendency persisted to choose “masculine” toys when playing with boys and “feminine” or gender-neutral toys for girls. During the preschool years, boys come to believe that their fathers disapprove of cross-gender toy choices and behave accordingly, rejecting these toys (Raag & Rackliff, 1998). That belief may be correct: When reading picture books with their children, fathers made more comments endorsing gender-stereotypical behaviors than mothers (Endendijk et al., 2014). Thus, parents encour- age some and discourage other gender-related behaviors.

Gendered Voices: I Wouldn’t Know How to Be a Man

“I never thought of myself as very feminine, but I wouldn’t begin to know how to be a man,” said a woman in her thirties. “There are thousands of things about being a man or being a woman that the other doesn’t know. It takes years to learn all those things. I have been struck several times by the differences in women’s and men’s experience, by small things.

“During college one of my roommate’s boyfriends decided to paint one of his fi ngernails. It was an odd thing to do, but he said that it was an experience he hadn’t had, and he just wanted to try it. What was interesting was that he didn’t know how to go about it—didn’t know how to hold the brush, which direction to apply the polish. It was interesting to watch him. That was the fi rst time that I really thought, ‘Men and women have some unique expe- riences that the other does not know.’ I’ve had that thought many times since then, usually about small experiences or skills that women have and men don’t.

“I’m sure that it works the other way, too. There’s a world of little experiences that are part of men’s lives that women don’t have a clue about. For example, I wouldn’t know how to go about shaving my face. In some sense, these experiences are trivial, but they made me think about the differences between the worlds of women and men.”

Social learning theory hypothesizes that these forces affect gender-related thinking, and children come to develop gender knowledge and gender standards for their own behavior. In children age 2 to 4 years, behavior typical of the same sex was more common than behavior typical of the other sex for all ages of children (Bussey & Bandura, 1992). The younger chil- dren in the study reacted to their peers in gender-stereotypical ways but did not regulate their own behavior by these same standards, whereas the older children did both. These results indicate that these 4-year-old children had begun to develop a coherent set of standards that they applied to their gender-related behaviors.

When children start interacting with peers outside the home, these other children become a major source of both modeling and approval. Children’s play groups tend to be gender segregated, especially in school settings. Children often put a great deal of effort into main- taining this segregation and even begin to use insults and severe prohibitions aimed at those who attempt to join an other-sex group (Thorne, 1993). The formation of relationships, including the gender composition of play groups, is a topic explored in Chapter 9 .

The differential treatment of boys and girls is enhanced by parents’ and teachers’ expecta- tions and encouragement during the school years. Both parents and teachers are more likely to urge boys to persist in solving problems than they are to urge girls. By the time children reach adolescence, their models and reinforcements tend to encourage boys toward careers and sexual expression and girls toward domesticity and physical attractiveness (Peters, 1994). Therefore, children develop in environments that contain many sources of social learning that will lead to differences in the gender-related behaviors of boys and girls.

Theories of Gender Development 123

In summary, social learning theory views the development of gender-related behaviors as part of the overall development of many behaviors that children learn through observation and model- ing. This theory emphasizes the contribution of the social environment to learning and behavior. Social learning theory sees learning, which occurs through observation, as cognitive and separate from performance, which is behavioral. Whether a learned behavior is performed depends on the observed consequences of the behavior and the observers’ beliefs about the appropriateness of the behavior. Thus, children have many opportunities to observe gender-related behaviors from a wide variety of models, to develop beliefs about the consequences of those behaviors, and to exhibit gender-related behaviors as a result of their observation of these models.

Cognitive Theories of Gender Development

Sandra Bem (1985) criticized social learning theory, arguing that the theory portrays chil- dren as too passive; she believed that children are more actively involved in developing gender identity than social learning theory hypothesized. Bem argued that children do not exhibit a gradual increase in gender-related behaviors, but rather form cognitive categories for gender and then acquire gender-related knowledge around these categories. In addition, research evidence suggests that children may develop stronger gender stereotypes than their parents convey, which implies that children organize information about gender actively. Thus, another way to look at gender development places an emphasis on cognition. These theories include cognitive developmental theory and gender schema theory.

Cognitive Developmental Theory

The cognitive developmental theorist Lawrence Kohlberg (1966) described this theory by saying, “Our approach to the problems of sexual development starts directly with neither biology nor culture, but with cognition” (p. 82). Cognitive developmental theory views the acquisition of gender-related behaviors as part of children’s general cognitive development. This development occurs as children mature and interact with the environment, forming an increasingly complex and accurate understanding of their bodies and the world around them.

The cognitive developmental approach follows Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive develop- ment, which places the development of gender-related concepts into the realm of increasing cognitive abilities and which emphasizes children’s active role in organizing their own thoughts (see Ginsburg & Opper, 1969). Piaget described four stages of cognitive development, begin- ning at birth and ending during preadolescence, throughout which children achieve cognitive maturity. During childhood, limitations in cognitive abilities lead children to have problems in classifying objects according to any given physical characteristic such as size or color. During their elementary school years, children gain in cognitive abilities but may still have diffi culty in dealing with abstractions, such as the ability to imagine hypothetical situations—“what if ?” Piaget believed that once children reach cognitive maturity, at around age 11 or 12 years, they no longer have any cognitive limitations on their understanding. (Although lack of information may be a limitation at this or any age, this problem is different from the limits on cognitive ability that appear during childhood.) Thus, Piaget explained cognitive development as a series of stages leading to an increasing ability to understand physical reality and deal with abstract, complex problems. Infants are capable of almost no abstract thought, but by preadolescence, children have fewer limitations on their cognitive abilities.

Cognitive developmental theorists see the development of gender-related behaviors as part of the larger task of cognitive development. Very young children, lacking a concept of self, can have no concept of their gender. Most 2-year-old children are unable to apply the words boy or girl consistently to self or others; thus they fail at gender labeling . When children use

124 Theories of Gender Development

gender labels correctly, they still lack critical gender knowledge—young children do not see gender as a permanent feature. They believe that a boy can become a girl if he wishes or that a girl might become a boy if she dressed in boys’ clothing (Kohlberg, 1966). That is, young children lack gender constancy , the belief that gender will remain the same throughout life. This concept rarely appears before age 4. According to cognitive developmental theory, gen- der constancy is essential for the development of gender identity; children begin to develop a gender identity based on a classifi cation of self and others as irreversibly belonging to one gender or the other.

This gender constancy is part of children’s growing ability to classify objects based on physical criteria. These cognitive developments in conceptualizing gender parallel other cog- nitive changes in children. Before age 5 or 6, children have an incomplete understanding of the qualities of physical objects, and their misunderstanding of gender is part of this limita- tion. By around age 6 years, children have developed a correct, if concrete, understanding of physical reality, including gender identity. Cognitive developmental theory sees changes that occur in gender identity as part of this process, and the mistakes that children make concerning gender identity are seen as part of their general cognitive limitations during the course of development. Consistent with this contention, a study that assessed children’s abil- ity to tell the difference between appearance and reality (Trautner, Gervai, & Németh, 2003) confi rmed that understanding reality develops before or concurrently with gender constancy.

The cognitive developmental approach is similar to the social learning approach in its emphasis on the role of cognition. However, the two approaches differ in several ways. Cognitive developmental theory hypothesizes that development moves through a series of discrete stages. Each stage has internal consistency and a set of differences that delineate it from successive stages. Social learning theory sees development as more continuous and not bounded by stages. Although the environment and culture are important in cognitive devel- opmental theory (Martin, Ruble, & Szkrybalo, 2004), those factors are even more important for social learning theory (Bussey, 2011; Bandura & Bussey, 2004). Figure 5.2 illustrates the difference between development as a continuous process and as a series of stages.

Figure 5.2 Two Views of Development

Theories of Gender Development 125

Cognitive developmental theory views the acquisition of gender-related behaviors as a by-product of the cognitive development of gender identity. Children begin to adopt and exhibit gender-related behaviors because they adopt a gender identity and strive to be consistent with this identity. On the other hand, social learning theory hypothesizes that children come to have a gender identity because they model gender-related behaviors. Through the performance of these behaviors, children conform to either the masculine or the feminine social roles of their culture. Thus, social learning theory sees gender identity as coming from performance of gender-related behaviors, whereas cognitive developmental theory sees gender-related behaviors as coming from the cognitive adop- tion of a gender identity.

When children develop an understanding of categories, including gender categories, they tend to concentrate on the classifi cation rules and show a great reluctance to make excep- tions. Applied to gender, this strategy leads to classifying all women and all men by invariant physical or behavioral characteristics. Therefore, cognitive developmental theory predicts that children will develop gender stereotypes as part of their process of developing gender identity (Martin, Ruble, & Szkrybalo, 2002). Table 5.6 illustrates some of limits on the development of gender identity according to cognitive developmental theory.

As Chapter 3 describes, a great deal of research evidence substantiates the notion that children form stereotypical gender concepts beginning early in their lives. Children as young as 2 years old exhibit stereotypical gender-related knowledge, and this level of knowledge relates to their comprehension of gender identity and gender constancy (Kuhn, Nash, & Brucken, 1978; Poulin-Dubois, Serbin, Eichstedt, Sen, & Beissel, 2002). The process of acquiring gender stereotypes has also been related to the development of gender constancy (Warin, 2000).

One problem with cognitive developmental theory comes from its emphasis on gender constancy as the primary force underlying the development of gender identity. Although Kohlberg’s predictions are not completely clear on this point (Stangor & Ruble, 1987), he hypothesized that gender constancy is pivotal in developing gender identity; all other facets of gender identity stem from establishing gender constancy. Although the interpre- tation of what constitutes gender constancy remains a point of contention (Ruble, Lurye, & Zosuls, 2007), research has failed to substantiate the primacy of gender constancy (Arthur, Bigler, & Ruble, 2009; Martin & Little, 1990), leaving a major component of this theory in doubt.

Another problem with cognitive developmental theory comes from the treatment of gen- der as the same as any other cognitive category. As Sandra Bem (1985) put it, “The theory fails to explicate why sex has primacy over other potential categories of the self such as race, religion, or even eye color” (p. 184). This theory fails to explain why children choose gender as a primary domain around which to organize information. Gender schema theory addresses this problem by extending the concepts in cognitive developmental theory.

Table 5.6 Limitations to Gender Development According to Cognitive Developmental Theory

Age Cognitive Ability/Limitation Consequences for Gender Development

< 1 year old No concept of self No concept of gender

< 2 years Cannot classify objects Cannot distinguish male from female

< 4 years Lack of gender constancy Believes that one sex may become the other

5 or 6 years Can classify objects based on physical properties Concrete understanding of gender

6 > years Infl exible application of concepts Stereotyping on the basis of gender

126 Theories of Gender Development

Gender Schema Theory

Gender schema theory is an extension of the cognitive developmental theory. A schema is “a cognitive structure, a network of associations that organizes and guides an individual’s perceptions” (Bem, 1981, p. 355). Piaget used the term schema (plural, schemata or schemas ) to describe how cognitions are internalized around various topics; gender schema theory hypothesizes that children develop gender-related behaviors because they develop schemas that guide them to adopt such behaviors. In this view, gender-related behaviors appear not only as a result of general cognitive development but also as a specifi c result of developing gender schemas.

According to gender schema theory, culture also plays a role in gender development, providing the reference for the formation of gender schemas. Not only are children ready to encode and organize information about gender, but they also do so in a social environ- ment that defi nes maleness and femaleness (Bem, 1985). As children develop, they acquire schemas that guide their cognitions related to gender. These schemas infl uence informa- tion processing and problem solving in memory and also regulate behavior (Frawley, 2008; Martin & Halverson, 1981; Martin et al., 2002, 2004; Wilansky-Traynor & Lobel, 2008). Gender schema theorists believe that children use these schemas to develop a concept of self versus others, and each child’s gender schema is included in that child’s self-schema, or self-concept. In addition, gender schemas can provide a guide for concepts of personal masculinity and femininity, including personal judgments about how people personally fi t, or fail to fi t, these schemas (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1987). Thus, gender schema theory provides an explanation for the concepts of masculinity and femininity and how people apply these concepts to themselves.

Bem (1985) emphasized the process rather than the content of gender schemata. The information in the schemas is not as important as the process of forming schemas and acting in ways that are consistent with them. Gender schema theory predicts that cogni- tive changes accompany schema formation, leading to alterations in the ways that children process gender-related information, which changes the ways in which they behave (Mar- tin et al., 2004). Confi rming these predictions, gender-schematic preschoolers behaved in more gender-typical ways than less schematic children (Levy, Barth, & Zimmerman, 1998; Wilansky-Traynor & Lobel, 2008).

Gender schema theory also predicts that developing gender schemata increases accuracy and memory for gender-consistent information compared to gender-inconsistent informa- tion. A number of studies have demonstrated such memory effects in both children and adults. Gender-typed college students tended to remember words in clusters related to gender—for example, the women’s proper names in one cluster and the men’s names in another (Bem, 1981). This schematicity did not affect the number of words remembered, but the orga- nization of memory differed according to participants’ gender schemata. In addition, par- ticipants with strong gender schemata were faster at making gender-related judgments that were consistent with their gender schemata than they were at making judgments inconsis- tent with their schemata. A study with both children and adults (Cherney, 2005) found that the effects of gender schemata appeared in incidental but not in an intentional memory task. A study with college students (Harper & Schoeman, 2003) found that gender was a strong, cognitive, organizing principle that affected stereotyping. A longitudinal study with chil- dren in Hong Kong (Lobel, Bar-David, Gruber, Lau, & Bar-Tal, 2000) demonstrated that the process of developing gender schemata is similar for these Asian children and results in similar changes in cognitive processing. Thus, gender schema theory has some validity across cultures.

The types of differences found among gender-schematic college students prompted fur- ther research using a similar approach, but with participants of various ages. A review of

Theories of Gender Development 127

the research on gender schema and information processing (Stangor & Ruble, 1987) indi- cated that children with well-defi ned gender schemata tend to remember gender-consistent information better than gender-inconsistent information. For example, when children see drawings, photos, or videotapes in which men and women perform activities such as cooking and sewing or driving a truck and repairing appliances, gender-schematic children remember the gender-typical pairings (women cooking and sewing and men driving trucks and repair- ing appliances) better than the gender-atypical pairings (women driving trucks and repairing appliances and men cooking and sewing). In addition, children tend to change their memo- ries to fi t the gender-typical activities, such as remembering a man driving a truck when he was pictured as cooking. This tendency to distort memory in ways consistent with gender schemata suggests that the development of gender schemata infl uences the way that people interpret information (Martin & Ruble, 2004).

In developing gender schemas, children become increasingly ready to interpret informa- tion in terms of gender. A tendency to interpret information in gender-schematic terms may lead to gender stereotyping—exaggerated and narrow concepts of what is appropriate and acceptable for each gender. Gender associations tend to be unconventional and a bit odd in young children (“It’s a boy because he’s painting a picture.”) but become more conventional as children reach elementary school age (Tennenbaum, Hill, Joseph, & Roche, 2010). The formation of gender stereotypes can be understood as a natural refl ection of the use of gender schemata (Martin & Halverson, 1981; Martin et al., 2002). Some of the effects of gender stereotyping are positive, such as increased ease in classifying behaviors and objects, which can give children the feeling that the environment is manageable and predictable. But stereotyping can also have negative effects, leading to inaccurate perceptions and failures to accept informa- tion that does not fi t the stereotype (Frawley, 2008). Thus, the existence of gender schemata prompts the formation of gender stereotypes, with both positive and negative consequences.

In summary, gender schema theory extends the cognitive developmental theory by hypoth- esizing the existence of gender schemata, cognitive structures that internally represent gender-related information and guide perception and behavior. Children internalize their schemata for masculinity or femininity to form a self-concept, or self-schema, for gender- related behaviors. Research has indicated that gender schemata can affect the processing of gender-related information and can lead to gender stereotyping.

Which Theory is Best?

Each of these theories of gender development presents an orderly pattern of development, but the research shows a complex pattern with many components that do not necessarily match the theories. That is, none of the theories is able to explain all the data from research on gender identity development.

Social learning theory predicts a process of learning gender roles, which results in a gradual matching of gender-related behaviors to the culturally prescribed pattern through modeling and reinforcement of gender-appropriate behaviors. Although the research shows that chil- dren begin learning information consistent with gender at an early age, gender knowledge consists of several different concepts that do not appear incrementally. The fi nding that children learn gender labeling before gender-typical toy and clothing preferences indicates a pattern of gender knowledge development that social learning theory does not predict.

Research has substantiated the infl uence of parents, siblings, and peers in directing gender- related behaviors. Social learning theory predicts that family, peers, teachers, and media images of men and women affect children in their learning and performance of gender- appropriate behaviors. Modeling can be a powerful force in prompting the performance of

128 Theories of Gender Development

gender-related behaviors (Bandura & Bussey, 2004; Bussey, 2011; Bussey & Bandura, 1984, 1992, 1999), and same-sex siblings, parents, peers, and teachers are all important infl uences in the child’s development of gender fl exibility (Bronstein, 2006). These fi ndings are con- sistent with the predictions of social learning theory.

Gendered Voices: Equal Opportunity Oven

McKenna Pope thought that her younger brother needed an Easy-Bake Oven because he was interested in cooking (Pesta, 2012), and he was trying to cook a tortilla on a light bulb, so he obviously needed help. McKenna persuaded her mother to buy him one. In the store, they found only girly ovens in pink and purple. Thirteen-year-old McKenna “was appalled” because “The oven comes in gender-specifi c hues: purple and pink. I feel that this sends a clear message: women cook, men work” (in Pesta, 2012, p. 3).

McKenna posted a petition on Change.org and collected 45,000 signatures in support, including several famous male chefs. Hasbro, the company that has manufactured the Easy- Bake Oven since the 1960s, responded by developing a model that is black, blue, and silver. This model is intended to be more suitable for boys, but McKenna pronounced “It kind of looks like an appliance you would legitimately have in your kitchen” (in Pesta, 2012, p. 1).

Social learning theory allows that girls and boys might differ not only in their gender- related behaviors but also in their cross-gender behaviors. The male gender role carries more power, and power is one of the factors that affect children’s modeling. During childhood, boys are discouraged from performing feminine behaviors, whereas girls may not be discour- aged from performing behaviors typical of boys (Kane, 2006). These differences lead to the prediction that boys should be more strongly gender-typed than girls, and research supports this difference. Cognitive developmental theory does not allow for a different pattern of development for boys and girls, whereas gender schema theory hypothesizes that parental attitudes and family patterns may produce variations in individual schemas. This theory does not specifi cally address differences in schemas between girls and boys but allows for the possibility.

Cognitive developmental theory hypothesizes that gender identity comes about through cognitive changes that occur through general cognitive development. Research has indicated that gender development produces cognitive changes in accuracy and memory for gender- related information, but gender schema theory makes a similar prediction, so fi ndings that support these cognitive changes are applicable to either theory.

The prediction that gender constancy is the basis for developing all other gender knowl- edge presents problems. Indeed, research has shown that gender constancy develops later than many other components of gender knowledge. This discrepancy is a serious problem for cognitive developmental theory. Another problem for this theory is that gender develop- ment continues during adolescence. According to cognitive developmental theory, children undergo no additional cognitive changes after early adolescence, but research has shown that late adolescence and adulthood are times during which individuals gain fl exibility of gender beliefs. Understanding the development of gender fl exibility is a goal for researchers in this area (Martin & Ruble, 2004).

Gender schema theory predicts that children develop a cognitive organization for gender—a schema—that forms the basis for their understanding of gender and directs their gender-related behaviors. The types of cognitive changes that this theory predicts have been

Theories of Gender Development 129

found in modes of information processing, such as accuracy of judgments and memory effects. In preschool children, gender schematicity was a signifi cant predictor of masculine and feminine gender-typed behaviors, but gender constancy was not related (Levy et al., 1998). A study in which children increased their gender constancy showed no effect on their gender typing (Arthur et al., 2009). In addition, women in traditional versus nontraditional jobs have different conceptualizations of gender-appropriate behavior (Lavallee & Pelletier, 1992), a fi nding consistent with gender schema theory.

Gender development seems to consist of several different cognitive abilities. One team of researchers (Hort, Leinbach, & Fagot, 1991) proposed that the cognitive components of gender development do not have a great deal of coherence; they postulated that such knowl- edge varies among individual children of the same age and stage of cognitive development. In a study of girls in grades 2 through 12, the patterns among measures were more consistent for children than for adolescents (Signorella & Frieze, 2008). That is, gender knowledge may not fall into a pattern suffi ciently coherent to be called a schema.

It is evident from this discussion that all of the social theories of gender development make predictions that research has supported, and all make predictions that research has failed to confi rm. Table 5.7 compares these theories. The picture drawn from the research shows that gender development presents a more complex process than any of the theories can fully explain. Gender development consists of separate components—gender labeling, preferences

Table 5.7 Comparison of Theories of Gender Development

Psychodynamic Theories

Social Learning Theory

Cognitive Developmental Theory

Gender Schema Theory

Gender differences develop through . . .

Early childhood interactions with parents

Reinforcement and observation of models

General cognitive development, especially gender constancy

Development of gender-specifi c schemata

Children’s participation involves . . .

Passively moving through stages

Choosing which models to imitate

Organizing information about physical world

Developing schemata specifi c to gender

Gender development begins . . .

During Oedipal period (Freud); during pre-Oedipal period (Chodorow)

As soon as the culture emphasizes it, usually during infancy

During preschool years

During preschool years

Gender development proceeds . . .

Through resolution of Oedipus complex (Freud); through identifi cation with or separation from mother (Chodorow)

Gradually becoming more like adult knowledge

Through a series of stages

Through development of schemata

Gender development fi nishes . . .

With identifi cation with same-sex parent

During adulthood, if at all

During late childhood or preadolescence

During late childhood

Girls and boys . . . Develop very different personalities; girls are inferior (Freud); boys have a more diffi cult time separating from mother (Chodorow)

May develop different gender knowledge as well as different gender- related behaviors

Develop similar cognitive understanding of gender

May develop different structures and schemata, depending on parents and family patterns

130 Theories of Gender Development

for gender-typed activities, gender stereotyping, and gender constancy. These components appear to develop in a pattern, but the pattern does not exactly conform to any of those predicted by the theories. Thus, all of the social theories of personality development have been useful and have been partially confi rmed, but none is without weaknesses.

Summary

Psychoanalytic theory, originated by Freud, is the traditional approach to psychodynamic personality theory and relies on the concepts of unconscious forces and biologically deter- mined instincts to explain personality development and functioning. Freud’s theory hypoth- esized a series of psychosexual stages to account for the infl uence of childhood experiences on adult personality. Freud focused on the phallic stage, with its Oedipus complex in which children are attracted to their other-sex parent and feel fear and hostility toward their same- sex parent. Boys experience a more traumatic and a more complete resolution of the Oedipus complex than girls.

Other psychodynamic theories include Horney’s theory, which disputed Freud’s view that women inevitably experience inferiority by arguing that social, not biological, forces form the basis for personality differences between the sexes. Horney hypothesized that men try to feel more adequate by disparaging women. Feminist psychoanalytic theories include those origi- nated by Nancy Chodorow and Ellyn Kaschak. Chodorow’s theory emphasizes the primacy of the early relationship with mothers and hypothesizes that boys have a more diffi cult time separating themselves from the feminine than do girls. Men’s success in forming a mascu- line identity results in a denial of all that is feminine, including a rejection of female values. Kaschak’s theory relies on the Oedipus legend, hypothesizing that Oedipus personifi es men’s drives for power and feelings of entitlement, whereas Antigone, the faithful daughter, repre- sents women’s self-sacrifi ce. She maintained that patriarchal culture perpetuates these roles and makes resolving these complexes diffi cult for men and women.

Alternatives to psychodynamic theory include social learning theory and several cogni- tive theories that explain how infants come to identify themselves as male or female, to understand gender, and to behave in ways that their culture deems gender-appropriate. The social learning approach relies on the concepts of observational learning and model- ing to explain how children learn and perform gender-related behaviors. Initially family members, and later the broader culture, provide models and reinforcements for adopt- ing certain gender-related behaviors while discouraging others. Research has supported the power of children’s family and social surroundings to infl uence the development of gender-related behaviors, but the orderly pattern of gender development that occurs is not consistent with this theory.

Cognitive theories include cognitive developmental theory and gender schema theory. Cognitive developmental theory holds that gender identity is a cognitive concept that chil- dren learn as part of the process of learning about the physical world and their own bodies. Children younger than 2 years have no concept of gender and cannot consistently label themselves or others as male or female. When children have developed gender constancy, the understanding that gender is a permanent personal characteristic that will not change with any other physical transformation, their gender identity is developed. However, research has indicated that gender constancy is among the last types of gender knowledge that children acquire, which presents a problem for this theory.

Gender schema theory is an extension of cognitive developmental theory that explains gender identity in terms of schemas—cognitive structures that underlie complex concepts. When children acquire a gender schema, they change the way that they deal with informa- tion concerning gender and also change their behavior to conform to gender roles. This

Theories of Gender Development 131

theory suggests that gender stereotyping is a natural extension of the process of develop- ing gender schemas, and that children become stereotypical in their gender behavior and judgments.

Psychodynamic theories have little research support, and gathering such evidence is dif- fi cult for these theories because they draw on unconscious factors. Evaluating the social and cognitive theories of gender development leads to the conclusion that although each has sup- porting research, this research fails to confi rm any one theory to the exclusion of the others.

Glossary

castration complex in Freudian theory, the unconscious fear that the father will castrate his son as a punishment for the son’s sexual longings for his mother.

gender constancy the knowledge that gender is a permanent characteristic and will not change with superfi cial alterations.

gender identity individual identifi cation of self as female or male. gender labeling the ability to label self and others as male or female. gender role a set of socially signifi cant activities associated with being male or female. masochism feelings of pleasure as a result of painful or humiliating experiences. Oedipus complex in Freudian theory, the situation that exists during the phallic stage in

which the child feels unconscious hostility toward the same-sex parent and unconscious sexual feelings for the opposite-sex parent. Freud used the story of Oedipus as an analogy for the family dynamics that occur during the phallic stage of personality development.

operant conditioning a type of learning based on the administration of reinforcement or punishment. Receiving reinforcement links the reinforcement with the behavior that preceded it, making the behavior more likely to be repeated.

pre-Oedipal period time during early childhood, before the phallic stage and the Oedipus complex. Some feminist psychoanalytic theorists, including Chodorow, have empha- sized the importance of this period for personality development.

psychosexual stages in Freudian theory, the series of stages ranging from birth to maturity through which the individual’s personality develops. These stages are the oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital stages.

punishment any stimulus that decreases the probability that a behavior will be repeated. reinforcement any stimulus that increases the probability that a behavior will be repeated. schema an internal cognitive structure that organizes information and guides perception. unconscious in Freudian theory, a region of the mind functioning beyond a person’s con-

scious awareness.

Suggested Readings

Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. In Theo B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1984: Psychology and gender (pp. 179–226). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Bem evaluates the other theories of gender development and presents gender schema theory, the research

supporting her theory, along with advice about raising nonsexist children.

Bussey, Kay; & Bandura, Albert. (1999). Social-cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106 , 676–713. This lengthy article presents information in support of social learning theory and makes an argument that

this theory is suffi cient to explain gender development.

Chodorow, Nancy. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.

132 Theories of Gender Development

With its psychoanalytic terminology, Chodorow’s book is diffi cult reading, but it offers a compelling alterna- tive to Freud’s theory and has infl uenced many of the scholars who take the feminist standpoint on personality development.

Martin, Carol Lynn; & Ruble, Diane. (2004). Children’s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 , 67–70. Martin and Ruble briefl y summarize cognitive developmental and gender schema theory and the evidence

that supports the cognitive view of gender development. Their emphasis is on the active role that children take in understanding how to deal with gender.

Zosuls, Kristina; Miller, Cindy; Ruble, Diane; Martin, Carol; & Fabes, Richard. (2011). Gender development research in Sex Roles : Historical trends and future directions. Sex Roles, 64 (11/12), 826–842. Zosuls and her colleagues review the history of gender research, focusing on gender identity development

research published in this infl uential journal.

Suggested Websites

Psychoanalytic theory and feminism may seem to have no overlap, but psychoanalytic feminism exists. A summary and history appears at http://www.oakton.edu/user/2/hgraff/WGSSummaryPsychoanalyticFemminismS12.html.

To counter the many media models that children see, families may seek information about encouraging media literacy in children. The University of Michigan’s Health System sponsors a website with resources for child development, one of which features information to help parents boost their children’s media literacy (http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/media.htm). The site is fi lled with links to papers and materials. The Center for Media Literacy also provides information about developing skills to counteract harmful media messages, including a good article oriented toward preschool children (http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/ abcs-media-literacy-what-can-pre-schooolers-learn).

References

Arthur, Andrea E.; Bigler, Rebecca S.; & Ruble, Diane N. (2009). An experimental test of the effects of gender constancy on sex typing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104 (4), 427–446.

Baker, Kaysee; & Raney, Arthur A. (2007). Equally super? Gender-role stereotyping of superheroes in children’s animated programs. Mass Communication & Society, 10 (1), 25–41.

Bandura, Albert. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, Albert; & Bussey, Kay. (2004). Broadening the cognitive, motivational, and sociostructural scope of theorizing about gender development and functioning: Comment on Martin, Ruble, and Szkrybalo (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 130 , 691–701.

Bell, Leslie C. (2004). Psychoanalytic theories of gender. In Alice H. Eagly, Ann E. Beall, & Robert J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 145–168). New York: Guilford Press.

Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex-typing. Psychological Review, 88 , 354–364.

Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. In Theo B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1984: Psychology and gender (pp. 179–226). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Benenson, Joyce F.; Morash, Deanna; & Petrakos, Harriet. (1998). Gender differences in emotional closeness between preschool children and their mothers. Sex Roles, 38 , 975–986.

Bronstein, Phyllis. (2006). The family environment: Where gender role socialization begins. In Judith Worell & Carol D. Goodheart (Eds.), Handbook of girls’ and women’s psychological health: Gender and well-being across the lifespan (pp. 262–271). New York: Oxford University Press.

Burguera, Xavier Fuster. (2011). Muffl ed voices in animation: Gender roles and black stereotypes in Warner Bros. cartoons: From Honey to Babs Bunny. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brosov, Series IV: Philology & Cultural Studies, 4 (53), 65–76.

Bussey, Kay. (2011). Gender identity development. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L Vignoles (Eds.), Hand- book of identity theory and research (pp. 603–628). New York: Springer.

Theories of Gender Development 133

Bussey, Kay; & Bandura, Albert. (1984). Infl uence of gender constancy and social power on sex-linked model- ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 , 1292–1302.

Bussey, Kay; & Bandura, Albert. (1992). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing gender development. Child Development, 63 , 1236–1250.

Bussey, Kay; & Bandura, Albert. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106 , 676–713.

Campenni, C. Estelle. (1999). Gender stereotyping of children’s toys: A comparison of parents and nonparents. Sex Roles, 40 , 121–138.

Cherney, Isabelle D. (2005). Children’s and adult’s recall of sex-stereotyped toy pictures: Effects of presentation and memory tasks. Infant and Child Development, 14 , 11–27.

Chodorow, Nancy. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Chodorow, Nancy. (1979). Feminism and difference: Gender, relation, and difference in psychoanalytic perspec- tive. Socialist Review, 46 , 42–64. Also in Mary Roth Walsh (Ed.) (1987). The psychology of women: Ongoing debates (pp. 249–264). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Chodorow, Nancy J. (1994). Femininities, masculinities, sexualities: Freud and beyond . Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.

Chodorow, Nancy J. (2005). Gender on the modern-postmodern and classical-relational divide: Untangling history and epistemology. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 53 (4), 1097–1118.

Endendijk, Joyce J.; Groeneveld, Marleen G.; van der Pol, Lotte D.; van Berkel, Sheila R.; Hallers-Haalboom, Elizabeth T.; Mesman, Judi; . . . Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J. (2014). Boys don’t play with dolls: Moth- ers’ and fathers’ gender talk during picture book reading. Parenting: Science and Practice, 14 (3–4), 141–161.

Fagot, Beverly I.; & Hagan, Richard. (1991). Observations of parent reactions to sex-stereotyped behaviors: Age and sex effects. Child Development, 62 , 617–628.

Feist, Jess; Feist, Gregory J.; & Roberts, Tomi-Ann. (2013). Theories of personality (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Frawley, Timothy J. (2008). Gender schema and prejudicial recall: How children misremember, fabricate, and distort gendered picture book information. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22 (3), 291–303.

Freud, Sigmund. (1964). Femininity. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis (pp. 112–135). New York: Norton. (Original work published 1933).

Freud, Sigmund. (1989). Some psychical consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. In P. Gay (Ed.), The Freud reader (pp. 670–678). New York: Norton. (Original work published in 1925).

Gay, Peter. (1988). Freud: A life for our time . New York: Norton. Ginsburg, Herbert; & Opper, Sylvia. (1969). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development: An introduction . Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Grace, Diana M.; David, Barbara J.; & Ryan, Michelle K. (2008). Investigating preschoolers’ categorical think-

ing about gender through imitation, attention, and the use of self-categories. Child Development, 79 (6), 1928–1941.

Halim, May Ling; Ruble, Diane N.; & Amodio, David M. (2011). From pink frilly dresses to “one of the boys”: A social-cognitive analysis of gender identity development and gender bias. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5 (11), 933–949.

Harper, Marcel; & Schoeman, Wilhelm J. (2003). Infl uences of gender as a basic-level category in person percep- tion on the gender belief system. Sex Roles, 49 , 517–526.

Hort, Barbara E.; Leinbach, Mary D.; & Fagot, Beverly I. (1991). Is there coherence among the cognitive com- ponents of gender acquisition? Sex Roles, 24 , 195–207.

Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie; & Frieze, Irene H. (1987). The role of gender in reactions to criminal victimization. In R. C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 159–184). New York: Free Press.

Johnson, Fern L.; & Young, Karen. (2002). Gendered voices in children’s television advertising. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19 , 461–480.

Johnson, Michael P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.

Johnson, Michael P. (2005). Domestic violence: It’s not about gender—or is it? Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (5), 1126–1130.

Johnson, Michael P.; & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26 , 322–349.

134 Theories of Gender Development

Kane, Emily W. (2006). “No way my boys are going to be like that!”: Parents’ responses to children’s gender nonconformity. Gender and Society, 20 , 149–176.

Kaschak, Ellyn. (1992). Engendered lives . New York: Basic Books. Klein, Hugh; & Shiffman, Kenneth S. (2009). Underrepresentation and systematic annihilation of socially

disenfranchised groups (“out groups”) in animated cartoons. Howard Journal of Communications, 20 , 55–72. Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In

Eleanor E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 52–173). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kuhn, Deanna; Nash, Sharon C.; & Brucken, Laura. (1978). Sex role concepts of two- and three-year olds. Child Development, 49 , 445–451.

Larson, Mary Strom. (2001). Interactions, activities and gender in children’s television commercials: A content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45 , 41–56.

Lauzen, Martha M.; Dozier, David M.; & Horan, Nora. (2008). Constructing gender stereotypes through social roles in prime-time television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52 (2), 200–214.

Lavallee, Marguerite; & Pelletier, Rene. (1992). Ecological value of Bem’s gender schema theory explored through females’ traditional and nontraditional occupational contexts. Psychological Reports, 70 , 79–82.

Levy, Gary D.; Barth, Joan M.; & Zimmerman, Barbara J. (1998). Associations among cognitive and behavioral aspects of preschoolers’ gender role development. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159 , 121–126.

Lewin-Jones, Jenny; & Mitra, Barbara. (2009). Gender roles in television commercials and primary school children in the UK. Journal of Children & Media, 3 (1), 35–50.

Lobel, Thalma E.; Bar-David, Eva; Gruber, Reut; Lau, Sing; & Bar-Tal, Yoram. (2000). Gender schema and social judgments: A developmental study of children. Sex Roles, 43 , 19–42.

Long, Marliee; Steinke, Jocelyn; Applegate, Brooks; Lapinski, Maria Knight; Johnson, Marne J.; & Ghosh, Sayani. (2010). Portrayals of male and female scientists in television programs popular among middle school- age children. Science Communication, 32 (3), 356–382.

Lovas, Gretchen S. (2005). Gender and patterns of emotional availability in mother-toddler and father-toddler dyads. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26 (4), 327–353.

Martin, Carol Lynn; & Halverson, Charles F., Jr. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex-typing and ste- reotyping in children. Child Development, 52 , 1119–1134.

Martin, Carol Lynn; & Little, Jane K. (1990). The relation of gender understanding to children’s sex-typed preferences and gender stereotypes. Child Development, 61 , 1427–1439.

Martin, Carol Lynn; & Ruble, Diane. (2004). Children’s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 , 67–70.

Martin, Carol Lynn; Ruble, Diane N.; & Szkrybalo, Joel. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender develop- ment. Psychological Bulletin, 128 , 903–933.

Martin, Carol Lynn; Ruble, Diane N.; & Szkrybalo, Joel. (2004). Recognizing the centrality of gender identity and stereotype knowledge in gender development and moving toward theoretical integration: Reply to Ban- dura and Bussey (2004). Psychological Bulletin, 130 , 702–710.

Miletic, Michelle Price. (2002). The introduction of a feminine psychology to psychoanalysis: Karen Horney’s legacy. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 38 (2), 287–299.

Mischel, Walter. (1966). A social-learning view of sex differences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 56–81). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mischel, Walter. (1993). Introduction to personality (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ogletree, Shirley M.; Martinez, Cristal N.; Turner, Trent R.; & Mason, Brad. (2004). Pokémon: Exploring the

role of gender. Sex Roles, 50 , 851–859. Pesta, Abigail. (2012, December 17), Easy-bake oven mans up: Hasbro to manufacture boy-friendly design. The

Daily Beast . Retrieved September 3, 2015, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/easy- bake-oven-mans-up-hasbro-to-manufacture-boy-friendly-design.html

Peters, John F. (1994). Gender socialization of adolescents in the home: Research and discussion. Adolescence, 29 , 913–934.

Pike, Jennifer J.; & Jennings, Nancy A. (2005). The effects of commercials on children’s perceptions of gender appropriate toy use. Sex Roles, 52 , 83–91.

Poulin-Dubois, Diane; Serbin, Lisa A.; Eichstedt, Julie A.; Sen, Maya G.; & Beissel, Clara F. (2002). Men don’t put on make-up: Toddlers’ knowledge of the gender stereotyping of household activities. Social Development, 11 , 166–181.

Theories of Gender Development 135

Quinn, Susan. (1987). A mind of her own: The life of Karen Horney . New York: Summit Books. Raag, Tarja; & Rackliff, Christine L. (1998). Preschoolers’ awareness of social expectations of gender: Relation-

ships to toy choices. Sex Roles, 38 , 685–700. Ruble, Diane N.; Lurye, Leah E.; & Zosuls, Kristina M. (2007). Pink Frilly Dresses (PFD) and early gender

identity. Princeton Report on Knowledge, 2 (2). Retrieved September 5, 2015, from http://www.princeton.edu/ prok/issues/2–2/pink_frilly.xml

Sandler, Lauren. (2009). Code pink. Mother Jones, 34 (5), 73–75. Signorella, Margaret L.; & Frieze, Irene Hanson. (2008). Interrelations of gender schemas in children and ado-

lescents: Attitudes, preferences, and self-perceptions. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 36 (7), 941–954.

Signorielli, Nancy. (2004). Aging on television: Messages relating to gender, race, and occupation in prime time. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48 , 279–301.

Stangor, Charles; & Ruble, Diane N. (1987). Development of gender role knowledge and gender constancy. In L. S. Liben & M. L. Signorella (Eds.), Children’s gender schemata (pp. 5–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tennenbaum, Harriet R.; Hill, Darryl B.; Joseph, Nadia; & Roche, Erin. (2010). “It’s a boy because he’s painting a picture”: Age differences in children’s conventional and unconventional gender schemas. British Journal of Psychology, 101 (1), 137–154.

Thompson, Teresa L.; & Zerbinos, Eugenia. (1995). Gender roles in animated cartoons: Has the picture changed in 20 years? Sex Roles, 32 , 651–674.

Thompson, Teresa L.; & Zerbinos, Eugenia. (1997). Television cartoons: Do children notice it’s a boy’s world? Sex Roles, 37 , 415–432.

Thorne, Barrie. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Trautner, Hanns M.; Gervai, Judit; & Németh, Rita. (2003). Appearance-reality distinction and the develop-

ment of gender constancy understanding in children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27 , 275–283.

Warin, Jo. (2000). The attainment of self-consistency through gender in young children. Sex Roles, 42 , 209–232.

Wilansky-Traynor, Pamela; & Lobel, Thalma E. (2008). Differential effects of an adult observer’s presence on sex-typed play behavior: A comparison between gender-schematic and gender-aschematic preschool children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37 (4), 548–557.

Wood, Eileen; Desmarais, Serge; & Gugula, Sara. (2002). The impact of parenting experience on gender stereo- typed toy play of children. Sex Roles, 47 , 39–49.

6 Developing Gender Identity

Headline: “A Boy’s Life,” The Atlantic, November 2008

Brandon was born looking like a boy, but he knew—even early in his childhood—that he was supposed to be a girl (Rosin, 2008). His fi rst complete sentence, which he said in a restaurant to a woman who was wearing an elegant red dress, was “I like your high heels” (Rosin, 2008, p. 56). He also acted like a girl when he visited the toy store, going to the aisles awash with pink and purple and fi lled with dolls, dollhouses, tea sets, and sparkly clothes. When he was 2½ and visiting his female cousin, Brandon fell in love with one of her many dolls, a Barbie doll wearing a pink sparkly dress. His cousin was kind and let him have the doll. He carried it everywhere, “even slept with it, like a teddy bear” (Rosin, 2008, p. 56).

Brandon is one of a small minority of boys who behaves in ways that are typically associ- ated with girls. Like Brandon, some of these boys wear girls’ clothing and prefer playing with dolls over playing sports. These gender-nonconforming behaviors prompt concerns among parents, as they did with Brandon’s mother. Parents of such children know that their sons’ behavior is different, but publicity about transgender individuals as well as an increas- ing acceptance of gender nonconformity have made parents a bit more hesitant to insist on gender-stereotypical behavior. Brandon’s parents decided to let him live as a girl. Other people are confused and less accepting. The publicity about transgendered individuals hit a new high in 2015, when Olympic gold medal athlete Bruce Jenner made a very public transition to the identity of Caitlyn (Bissinger, 2015).

Boys who fail to fi t the narrow restrictions of the male gender role concern not only par- ents but peers and teachers as well. People associate a childhood failure to conform to gender norms as a signal of problems, including adult behaviors, psychological adjustment, and sexual orientation (Thomas & Blakemore, 2013). Some experts (Pollack, 1998) have called for the type of expansion of the male gender role that has occurred for girls and women. Boys’ gender roles are more rigidly fi xed than girls’, yet boys are more likely to express a desire to be girls than the other way around. The children such as Brandon who experience gender dysphoria , a dissatisfaction and a failure to identify with their biological sex, provide provocative cases for gender development. Although the vast majority of individuals develop a gender identity consistent with their physiology and the pressures that come from many sources in the social environment, some do not.

This chapter fi rst traces the process of gender development, then examines several sources of infl uence in the process of gender development, and fi nally considers those individuals for whom the process diverges.

Gender Identity Development

Traditionally, a child’s sex was announced at birth, but now many parents know their child’s sex during prenatal development, which allows for gender differentiation even

Developing Gender Identity 137

before a child is born. In either event, the pinks and blues appear early in children’s lives. All social theories of gender development rate this type of differential treatment as important in prompting children to attend to and adopt particular behaviors. But to what extent do gender-typical behaviors signal the adoption of gender identity? Is it possible to behave in ways that are not typical for one gender or the other and yet have a fi rm notion of one’s gender identity? Does Brandon’s behavior in the headline story signal confusion over male gender identity or indicate only behaviors that are not typical for the male gender role?

Most people think of gender identity and gender role as the same thing, but many researchers have found it necessary to separate these concepts. The concept of gender identity refers to identifying and accepting the self as male or female. Gender role behaviors are those behaviors that are typically associated with males or females. Thus, children may behave in ways that are not typical for their gender and still have a clear gender identity, but exhibiting gender-atypical behaviors may signal some problem in the development of gender identity.

For gender identity to develop, an individual must have some understanding of the categories of male and female, such as the characteristics that distinguish the two, what labels apply to each gender, what activities are associated with each category, and how she or he fi ts into one or the other category. Research indicates that these elements of gender identity are separable and develop at different times during childhood. This process starts during infancy.

Development during Childhood

Infants seem to possess the ability to tell the difference between male and female faces. Although infants’ thoughts are diffi cult to study, one approach involves showing an infant objects such as photos of faces and measuring how long these objects hold the infant’s atten- tion. When infants see something new, they tend to gaze at the novel object; when they grow bored, their gaze shifts from the object. By noting when infants attend to an object and when they grow bored, researchers can deduce which stimuli infants can distinguish and which they cannot.

Results using such a procedure showed that infants have the ability to distinguish between women and men (Fagot & Leinbach, 1994). Infants as young as 7 months old distinguished male from female faces, mainly by using hair length as the cue. Such distinctions may occur earlier than 6 months of age, possibly based on the amount of experience with each type of face (Ramsey-Rennels & Langlois, 2006). This ability gives infants some basis to begin to make gender distinctions, but 9½-month-old infants showed no sign of gender differences in communication or gestures (Stennes, Burch, Sen, & Bauer, 2005). By age 24 months, however, differences appear in gender-related vocabulary.

Toddlers also showed some knowledge of gender-typical activities (Serbin, Poulin- Dubois, & Eichstedt, 2002). When presented with photographs of women and men performing gender-typical or gender-atypical activities, these young children attended longer to those performing gender-atypical activities; this refl ects their knowledge of what activities were and were not typical of men and women. Another study of children between 12 and 24 months old (Serbin, Poulin-Dubois, Colburne, Sen, & Eichstedt, 2001) showed that girls (but not boys) demonstrated some knowledge of gender-typical toys. These results suggest that gender knowledge begins to develop early, which is a fi rst step toward possessing a gender concept or identity. Even though infants can distinguish between men and women, they use hair length to signal gender, thus missing the true basis of the distinction.

138 Developing Gender Identity

The Sequence of Childhood Gender Role Development

Children may understand gender words before they produce them, but by age 24 months, both boys and girls use words that denote gender (Stennes et al., 2005). That is, they use gender labels to refer to women (or girls) and men (or boys). However, children sometimes misuse gender words by applying them incorrectly or inconsistently. For example, a child may label all people she likes or all members of her family as “girls” and all others as “boys.” Even at this early age, children use more words to refer to their own sex than to the other.

Toddlers under age 18 months fail at gender labeling (Fagot & Leinbach, 1989); few 20-month-olds succeed (Levy, 1999). By age 24 months, 67% of 24-month-olds were cor- rect in their gender labeling (Campbell, Shirley, & Caygill, 2002). In a longitudinal study (Zosuls et al., 2009), the average age for the appearance of gender labeling was 19 months (17 months for girls and 21 months for boys). Therefore, children begin to use gender labels slightly before age 2; between ages 2 and 3 years, the ability develops to use gender words accurately.

Labeling is a necessary step in the sequence of gender development, but success in this task does not assure correct performance on other types of gender knowledge (Levy, 1999). Children’s application of gender labels often occurs on the basis of some external and irrel- evant physical characteristic, such as clothing or hairstyle. Knowledge of gender-related behaviors and the traits and behaviors associated with each gender develop after gender labeling (Zosuls et al., 2009). Children between ages 20 and 28 months showed some indication of understanding for the categories of male and female (Levy, 1999), including objects associated with each category. Three-year-old participants were able to label the sexes, form groupings based on gender, and exhibit some knowledge of the behaviors typi- cally associated with women and men (Martin & Little, 1990; Ruble & Martin, 1998). One longitudinal study (Zosuls et al., 2009) found that gender labeling predicted gender- typed play.

At age 3, most children lack gender constancy; they do not understand that being female or male is a permanent, unchangeable feature. Young children may believe that they can change their sex if they want to or that changes in clothing or hair length will change their sex. The concept of gender constancy is very important in cognitive developmental theory. Kohlberg (1966) contended that developing gender constancy is the basis for other gender development. Research has suggested that this concept develops later than others, casting doubt on Kohlberg’s version of that theory.

Reformulations of cognitive developmental theory place less emphasis on gender con- stancy, acknowledging that this concept may be multifaceted, complex, and not the sole criterion for gender development (Martin, Ruble, & Szkrybalo, 2002; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). Gender constancy may consist of two separable components: gender stability, the knowledge that gender is a stable personal characteristic, and gender consis- tency, the belief that people retain their gender even when they adopt behaviors or superfi cial physical features associated with the other gender. For example, a child who shows gender stability will say that she was a girl when she was a baby and will be a woman when she grows up. A child who shows gender consistency will say that a boy will remain a boy even if he grows long hair or puts on a dress. Children may show gender stability without gender consistency, but never the other way around (Chauhan, Shastri, & Mohite, 2005; Martin & Little, 1990; Ruble, Taylor et al., 2007). One factor in developing gender stability is the pres- ence of young siblings; children who have younger siblings whose sex is the same as theirs develop gender constancy at earlier ages than children in families with other confi gurations

Developing Gender Identity 139

Photo 6.1 Boys who have not developed gender constancy express the belief that they may choose to become women and even have babies.

Gendered Voices: You Could Be a Boy One Day and a Girl the Next

“When my daughter was 2 or 3 years old, she clearly had no concept of gender or the permanence of gender,” a man told me. “She would say that she was a girl or a boy pretty much randomly, as far as I could tell. One day, she would say one, and maybe even later the same day, the other—for both herself and others. You could be a boy one day and a girl the next. This lack of permanence also extended to skin color. She would say that your skin was the color of your clothes, so that changed from day to day, too. One day, you were blue; the next day, your skin was red. I thought that was very odd, even more odd than being a boy one day and being a girl the next.

“She’s 5 years old now, and gender is a very salient characteristic for her. She seems to realize that she is a girl, and I think that she knows that she will always be a girl, but she is very concerned with gender and gender-related things—as though she is working on sort- ing out all this information and making sense of it.”

(Karniol, 2009). Many children develop gender stability before age 6, but some children in early elementary school may not have (Ruble, Taylor et al., 2007; Warin, 2000); they can be confused by changed appearance or gender-atypical names.

140 Developing Gender Identity

Gender stability may be more important than gender consistency for the development of other, gender-related behaviors (Ruble et al., 2007). For children who have developed both aspects of gender constancy, gender becomes a very salient aspect of their lives: They are more concerned about gender-appropriate behavior and making same-gender friends (Warin, 2000). Children who develop gender constancy become motivated to adopt gender- typical behaviors, causing them to avoid some activities and engage in others (Newman, Cooper, & Ruble, 1995). Children who are gender constant, therefore, have the motiva- tion to conform to gender roles. The pattern is regular: fi rst gender labeling, then gender stereotype knowledge and gender preferences, and then the two components of gender constancy—gender stability and gender consistency. Table 6.1 shows these four stages of development of gender knowledge.

But at what point have children developed the sense of being male or female that is defi ned as gender identity? That question is surprisingly diffi cult to answer. Some say that gender labeling signals gender identity because children are able to categorize on the basis of gender, including themselves. Others argue that children do not really have a gender identity until they exhibit gender consistency; before this point, they misunderstand critical elements of gender. Thus, the sequence of development is less controversial than the point at which gender identity is established.

Differences between Girls and Boys

The course of gender development shows some differences between boys and girls. Such a difference is reasonable, given the greater pressure placed on boys to adopt the typi- cal and approved gender role (Sandnabba & Ahlberg, 1999). As the mother in Rosin’s (2008) headline story reported, boys experience a more severe version of gender socializa- tion. Girls are allowed greater leeway in behaving in ways typical of boys than boys are allowed in acting like girls (Kane, 2006; Martin, 1995; O’Brien et al., 2000). That is, being a “tomboy” is more acceptable than being a “sissy.” Girls who identify as tomboys tend to feel less like typical girls (Ahlqvist, Halim, Greulich, Lurye, & Ruble, 2013), but they are judged to be as attractive as their nontomboy sisters (Bailey, Bechtold, & Berenbaum, 2002). Positive attitudes toward tomboys are common (Morgan, 1998), but many women who were tomboys said that they recall pressures to adopt more feminine behaviors (Carr, 2004, 2007).

Feminine boys experience more serious problems. College men and women (Martin, 1995), elementary school boys (Zucker, Wilson-Smith, Kurita, & Stern, 1995), and parents of young children (Kane, 2006; Sandnabba & Ahlberg, 1999) all expressed nega- tive opinions. Thus it is not surprising that boys begin to show greater knowledge of the male gender role than the female gender role, beginning as early as age 18 months

Table 6.1 Stages of Developing Gender-Related Knowledge

Gender Labeling Gender Preferences or Knowledge Gender Constancy

Stage 1 No No No

Stage 2 Yes No No

Stage 3 Yes Yes As gender stability

Stage 4 Yes Yes Yes

Source: Data from “The Relation of Gender Understanding to Children’s Sex-Typed Preferences and Gender Stereotypes,” by C. L. Martin and J. Little, 1990, Child Development, 61, pp. 1434–1435.

Developing Gender Identity 141

(Stennes et al., 2005). By age 3, boys tend to show greater stability of gender-typed pref- erences (Powlishta, Serbin, & Moller, 1993). However, girls develop gender knowledge faster than boys (Poulin-Dubois, Serbin, Eichstedt, Sen, & Beissel, 2002; Ruble et al., 2007), and they tend to be more knowledgeable about both male and female gender roles than boys are (O’Brien et al., 2000). Children develop strongly gender-typed behaviors between ages 3 and 5; the rigidity of that gender typing is especially strong between ages 3 and 4 (Halim, Ruble, Tamis-LeMonda, & Shrout, 2013).

Gender schema theory predicts that children attend to and master information about their own gender more rapidly than about the other gender (Levy & Fivush, 1993). Research has confi rmed these predictions: Young children have better-organized knowledge of events and behaviors stereotypically associated with their own rather than the other gender (Levy, 1999; Martin, Wood, & Little, 1990). In addition, children evaluate their own gender more positively than the other gender, with girls saying that “girls are better” and boys contending that “boys are better.”

Gendered Voices: Raising a Sissy

“Being twins, my brother and I were closer than most brothers and sisters. We didn’t look alike, but we were together a lot,” a college student told me. “We had different interests. I was the one who went outside and helped my dad, while my brother stayed inside with my mother. Everybody always said I should have been the boy and he should have been the girl.

“He didn’t want to play alone, so he played with me and my friends—dolls, or whatever we played. He never got to choose. And when we played dolls, he got the one that was left after me and my friend chose the ones we wanted. My mom said, ‘Let him play with the Ken doll—you have two Ken dolls—don’t make him play with a Barbie,’ but we didn’t. So he got the Barbie with one arm missing or something.

“I always liked the outdoor activities, and my brother didn’t. I was so upset that I couldn’t join the Cub Scouts. My dad was a troop leader, and I just couldn’t understand why I couldn’t join; I had always done outdoor things with my dad. Besides, the Brownies did wimpy things, and the Cub Scouts did neat stuff. I was so ticked off.

“When we were in about the 7th grade, I told my mother, ‘Mom, you’re raising a sissy,’ and I told her that my brother should stop hanging around with her and start doing things more typical of boys. She was really angry with me for saying so.

“Did we change as we grew up? I don’t consider myself very feminine—I don’t take any- thing off anybody. My mom can’t believe that her daughter acts like I do. I still like outdoor activities—camping, hiking, bicycling. I don’t think I’ve changed as much as my brother has. I wouldn’t consider him a sissy now. In high school he played football, and he started being more in line with what everyone would consider masculine. As an adult, he’s not a sissy at all, but I’m still kind of an adult tomboy.”

Later Development

The emphasis on the sequence of gender development during early childhood has led to the widespread belief that gender development is complete by about age 6 years. This belief has resulted in less research conducted with older children, adolescents, or adults (Zosuls, Miller, Ruble, Martin, & Fabes, 2011). Some researchers have explored the many dimensions of gender identity, but the majority of the research on continuing gender development has concentrated on the development of gender stereotypes and role fl exibility.

142 Developing Gender Identity

Research focusing on middle childhood has examined the relationship between gender- related behavior during this time and during adolescence. One study (McHale, Kim, White- man, & Crouter, 2004) assessed children around age 11 to determine how and with whom they spent their free time and the relationship of these activities to behavior in early adoles- cence. The results indicated that boys spent more time in gender-typed activities and with other boys, whereas girls participated in a greater variety of activities and interacted with both boys and girls. The patterns of activities predicted gender-typed behaviors two years later, which suggests that by middle childhood, children exhibit some stability in terms of gender-typed patterns of activities.

Two studies (Carver, Yunger, & Perry, 2003; Egan & Perry, 2001) explored the dimensions of gender identity in relation to adjustment and acceptance by peers for fourth- through eighth-grade children. These studies assessed the children’s gender identity, how pressured they felt to conform to gender-typical behavior, and how highly they valued their own gen- der. The results indicated that children with stronger gender identities showed better adjust- ment and acceptance by peers, but pressure to conform to gendered behavior prompted negative reactions. These studies suggest that gender identity is multidimensional and that children who have less well-established gender identities may face problems in terms of self- esteem and social acceptance, which is consistent with Brandon’s experience. His attraction to girls’ clothing and activities led to teasing and bullying by his peers.

Early in the course of gender development, knowledge and behaviors remain closely related—with greater knowledge comes stricter application of gender stereotypes. Cognitive development allows children to expand their knowledge of gender roles to include fl exibil- ity (Ruble et al., 2007; Trautner et al., 2005). Indeed, a large percentage of girls who were insistent on pink frilly dresses at age 4 become tomboys in late elementary school, focusing on sports and toys favored by boys (Halim, Ruble, & Amodio, 2011).

As children pass through middle childhood into adolescence, they become more capable of recognizing that the individuals in the categories of male and female vary among themselves and not just between the categories, which lays the basis for increasing gender fl exibility. Most studies have found a linear relationship between gender fl exibility and age—that is, as age increases, so does gender fl exibility (Bartini, 2006; Katz & Ksansnak, 1994; Welch-Ross & Schmidt, 1996). However, it may be possible to augment this process by teaching elementary school children to challenge their peers’ sexist remarks (Lamb, Bigler, Liben, & Green, 2009).

When children acquire gender role knowledge, they tend to apply it infl exibly, but with an increasing comfort with gender role comes an increasing willingness to make exceptions, especially when the standard is applied to self rather than others. However, the transition to junior high school is an event that prompts short-lived increase of gender fl exibility, fol- lowed by fairly rigid stereotyping during junior high school that persists during high school (Alfi eri, Ruble, & Higgins, 1996).

Some indications of infl exible gender stereotyping may be the result of different research methods used and variations in the measurement of fl exibility (Liben & Bigler, 2002; Signo- rella, Bigler, & Liben, 1993). For example, when forced to choose whether a behavior is per- formed by or an occupation is held by women or men, children are likely to show increasing evidence of gender stereotyping as they get older. If allowed the option to indicate that both may perform the behavior or either can have that occupation, even middle school children show signs of gender fl exibility. This difference highlights the importance of the format and wording of questions, especially in research with children.

In addition, gender role fl exibility may include attitudes and behaviors applied to self and others, casting gender fl exibility as a multidimensional concept. A longitudinal study of children in the sixth and seventh grades (Bartini, 2006) revealed that these components are

Developing Gender Identity 143

separable, and their developmental trajectories differ from each other and for girls and boys. Flexibility in attitudes increased over time, whereas self-perceptions and behaviors showed little change during middle school. During adolescence, gender-related behaviors changed in response to situational factors such as the gender of the person with whom the adolescents interacted and the instructions for performing the task (Leszczynski & Strough, 2008).

Children, adolescents, and even adults vary in their gender role fl exibility, and several researchers have explored factors that relate to fl exibility versus infl exibility. In one study (Katz & Ksansnak, 1994), a complex pattern of gender role fl exibility appeared: Both family and peer social environment infl uenced gender-related behavior, but participants showed a general increase in tolerance for gender-atypical activities for self and others with increasing age. Another study (Welch-Ross & Schmidt, 1996) found that increases in gender role knowledge preceded increases in gender role fl exibility, with fl exibility developing during middle child- hood. Other studies have found that gender fl exibility increased with age during childhood to adolescence (Trautner et al., 2005), from adolescence to young adulthood (Lobel, Nov- Krispin, Schiller, Lobel, & Feldman, 2004; Marcel, Eftim, Sonenstein, & Pleck, 2011), from younger to older ages during early adulthood for men (McDermot & Schwartz, 2013), and from middle to late adulthood for both women and men (Jones, Peskin, & Livson, 2011).

Figure 6.1 shows the course of development for gender knowledge and for application of gender-related rules over the lifespan. The knowledge component and application of gender-related rules increase throughout childhood, indicating decreases in fl exibility. Dur- ing adolescence, application of gender-related rules declines, signaling increased fl exibility.

Girls are more likely than boys to endorse gender fl exibility throughout adolescence (Crouter, Whiteman, McHale, & Osgood, 2007; Signorella et al., 1993). Girls show more fl exibility in their own activity preferences and greater tolerance for gender-atypical behaviors in others. Both adolescent girls (Burt & Scott, 2002) and women (Carter, Hall, Carney, & Rosip, 2006; Kulik, 2002) were more likely to endorse egalitarian gender roles than were boys and men. These attitudes apply not only to the United States but also to European countries (Frieze et al., 2003).

Figure 6.1 Course of Knowledge and Application of Gender-Related Rules for Behavior throughout the Lifespan

144 Developing Gender Identity

Some research has traced the correlates of both gender fl exibility and infl exibility in men. Those men who were stereotypically masculine tended to see women as stereotypically feminine; that is, men who show little gender fl exibility in their own roles also show little toward women (Hudak, 1993). In adolescents, infl exibility increases as traditional young men approach high school graduation and begin to contemplate marriage and careers (Jackson & Tein, 1998). Young men who are less strongly gender-typed tend to be more fl exible in their application of gender rules than more strongly gender-typed men (Lobel et al., 2004; Marcell et al., 2011). The experience of bachelorhood also seems to promote more fl exible attitudes; men who lived longer on their own expressed more egalitarian attitudes concerning women’s careers and sharing housework (Pitt & Borland, 2008). Also, greater fl exibility appeared in men whose early life experiences included nurturing fathers and mothers in the workforce as well as an adult relationship with a feminist women (Christian, 1994). These fi ndings suggest that both parenting and the social environment are related to gender fl exibility during young adulthood. Table 6.2 summarizes infl uences on gender fl exibility and infl exibility.

Table 6.2 Factors in the Development of Gender-Related Attitudes in Children

Children Who Exhibit Infl exible Attitudes about Gender

Children Who Exhibit More Flexible Attitudes about Gender

Are male Are female

(Bryant, 2003; Burt & Scott, 2002; Crouter et al., 2007; Frieze et al., 2003; Kulik, 2002)

Are between 5 and 7 years old Are older children, adolescents, or young

(Bartini, 2006; Lobel et al., 2004; Trautner et al., 2005; Welch-Ross & Schmidt, 1996)

Have parents who exhibit traditional attitudes concerning gender-related behaviors

Have parents who question traditional attitudes concerning gender-related behaviors

(Tennenbaum & Leaper, 2002)

Are men who have lived with their families and then in college dorms or with wives

Are men who have lived on their own as bachelors

(Pitt & Borland, 2008)

Interact more with parents Interact less with parents

(Levy, 1989)

Have same-gender siblings who are gender-infl exible Have same-gender siblings who are gender-fl exible

(Katz & Ksansnak,1994)

Have same-gender peers who are gender-infl exible Have same-gender peers who are gender-fl exible

(Katz & Ksansnak,1994)

Are more likely to have mothers who are homemakers Are more likely to have mothers who work outside the home

(Levy, 1989; Riggio & Desrochers, 2005)

Live in two-parent homes dominated by fathers Live in single-parent families with mothers

(Friedman, Leaper, & Bigler, 2007; Mandara, Murray, & Joyner, 2005; McHale, Updegraff, Shanahan, Crouter, & Killoren, 2005; Sidanius & Pena, 2003; Slavkin & Stright, 2000)

Live in families with both boys and girls Live in families with children all the same sex

(McHale, Crouter, & Tucker, 1999)

Are high school boys who are seniors and who are contemplating careers and marriage

Are high school girls who have mothers who work outside the home

(Jackson & Tein, 1998)

Developing Gender Identity 145

Does aging bring increased gender fl exibility? Like younger women, older women tend to endorse equal gender roles more strongly than older men do (Sweeting, Bhaskar, Benzeval, Popham, & Hunt, 2014), but gender role attitudes of young adulthood tend to persist into middle age. Examining those attitudes among different age groups revealed increasing gender role fl exibility in 2007 versus 1991. Adults aged 50 to 64 years old held signifi cantly more traditional gender role attitudes than those aged 20 to 34 years old, suggesting that the changes in societal gender role attitudes affected the younger participants, and the older adults tended to hold the traditional gender role attitudes they had formed years earlier.

However, other studies of older adults have found evidence of increased gender role fl ex- ibility over time. One study that tracked changes in gender role attitudes over time (Kalmijn, 2005) showed that changes occurred in married or cohabiting couples such that their atti- tudes came closer into alignment and that men’s attitudes were more likely to change than women’s. Another study questioned couples who had been married for 45 years or longer, focusing on the changes in their gender roles over the duration of their marriages (Pnina, 2009). The most common pattern of change involved men becoming more fl exible in their gender roles. Two of these studies (Pnina, 2009; Sweeting et al., 2014) showed that gen- der role fl exibility was related to better mental health, suggesting benefi ts to gender role fl exibility.

It is apparent that gender identity continues to develop during adolescence and even into older adulthood. When children have developed the cognitive and motivational components of gender identity, they tend to be infl exible in applying their understanding of these rules; they are intolerant of gender-atypical behavior in themselves and even more so in others. Children are “sexist piglets” who apply rigid rules of gender-related behavior to themselves and to others, but this infl exibility reaches a peak and then dissipates as individuals progress through middle childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

Infl uences on Gender Identity Development

The process of developing gender identity begins early in childhood and continues into adulthood. Although this process can be divided into stages, individuals vary in how rapidly they proceed through the stages and in the outcome of their gender iden- tity development. The most obvious difference is whether a person develops a male or female gender identity. The factors that infl uence the process are another consideration. Not only biology but also family, peers, and media exert infl uences on gender identity development.

Biological Factors and Gender Development

The most obvious biological infl uence for gender identity is the confi guration of the external genitalia, which lead to labeling an individual as male or female. This pronounce- ment prompts a host of social factors to swing into action. But what role do biological factors such as genes and prenatal exposure to hormones play a role in gender identity development?

The evolutionary view holds that adaptations during human evolutionary history have shaped gender-related behaviors, including the development of gender identity. One exam- ple is the gender difference in toy preference, which develops early in childhood (Alexander, 2003). Evolutionary psychologists argue that these preferences have an evolutionary basis. This claim cannot be true literally—there were no Barbies or toy trucks during human prehistory. However, it is possible that characteristics of typically masculine and feminine

146 Developing Gender Identity

toys express evolved tendencies for girls to nurture and for boys to explore the environment. These tendencies do not determine gender identity, but evolutionary psychologists propose that they provide the basis for its development.

Researchers have also explored the genetic basis for gender-typed behaviors, with incon- sistent results. Comparing twins with nontwins, one study (Iervolino, Hines, Golombok, Rust, & Plomin, 2005) concluded that gender-typed behaviors in 3- to 4-year-olds have a genetic component but are also infl uenced by environmental factors. The contribution of genetics and environment was not equal for boys and girls; genetics contributed more to girls’ behavior than to boys’. However, a study of adult female twins (Burri, Cherkas, Spector, & Rahman, 2011) found no evidence for a genetic component for adult gender identity.

The presence of prenatal testosterone prompts development of reproductive organs but also has the potential to infl uence brain development in ways that may affect gender-typed behaviors. Some of the evidence for hormonal infl uences on gender-related behaviors comes from research on girls with a disorder called congenital adrenal hyperplasia and boys who have experienced sexual reassignment during early childhood.

As discussed in Chapter 4 , congenital adrenal hyperplasia ( CAH ) is a disorder resulting in female fetuses that are exposed to high levels of androgens. These girls usually are born with “masculinized” genitalia, identifi ed as intersex individuals, and treated medically and surgi- cally to make their genitalia appear more female. Studies have examined their childhood behavior, often fi nding that girls with CAH engage in play behavior more typical of boys than of girls (Berenbaum, Blakemore, & Beltz, 2011; Berenbaum & Hines, 1992; Hines, Brook, & Conway, 2004). These girls are also less likely to grow up to be heterosexual than their sisters. However, the early androgen exposure does not have a substantial impact on their gender identity; the vast majority of girls with CAH develop a clear female gender iden- tity (Berenbaum, 2006). Thus, prenatal exposure to testosterone seems to be more strongly related to some gender-related behaviors than to gender identity.

Testosterone exposure also exerts prenatal effects when the exposure levels are within the normal range (Hines, Golombok, Rust, Johnston, & Golding, 2002). Examining gender- typical behaviors and blood samples taken from mothers during pregnancy revealed that girls who were high in masculine activities had mothers whose testosterone level was higher during pregnancy. A similar study (Auyeung et al., 2009) found a relationship between prenatal testosterone levels in amniotic fl uid and male-typical play activities during child- hood for both boys and girls. However, a more recent study (Wong, Pasterski, Hindmarsh, Geffner, & Hines, 2013) indicated that parents encourage gender-atypical toy play among girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which complicates the biological interpretation of this behavior.

Boys who have experienced sex reassignment during childhood offer another line of evi- dence to evaluate the biological basis for gender identity. Such boys are rare, and the drama surrounding one case made headlines. The case involved a boy (known as John) who lost his penis when he was 7 months old in a mishap during circumcision (Colapinto, 2000). His parents received medical advice to have sex reassignment surgery performed to change him into a girl. When he was 2 years old, they did so (creating Joan); the case was followed by researchers to determine the diffi culties of such a transition. Although reports of the reas- signment indicated that Joan developed a female gender identity, those reports were untrue. Throughout childhood, Joan refused to conform to many behaviors typical of girls. When she was an adolescent, Joan found out her history and sought sex reassignment surgery to become male again. Joan became John and made a successful adjustment to a male gender identity, which suggested a biological basis for gender identity development.

Developing Gender Identity 147

The John/Joan case contrasts with a similar situation but a different outcome—a boy whose penis was destroyed at age 2 months and who underwent sex reassignment at age 7 months (Bradley, Oliver, Chernick, & Zucker, 1998). This case, however, identifi ed as female. Despite some behaviors that were more typically associated with boys and some sexual attraction to women, at age 26, this individual had no question about her female gender identity.

One type of girl has very high masculine interests and activities—tomboys. These girls like boys’ games, prefer boys as playmates, and often shun activities that girls typically prefer. A study of tomboys (Bailey et al., 2002) examined how different tomboys were from their sis- ters and brothers. The results indicated that tomboys were more masculine than their sisters and even more masculine than CAH girls in terms of toy and playmate preferences. Their gender identities varied, with some tomboys showing poor identifi cation with the female gender role, but others showed the extremes of female gender identity combined with behav- iors more typical of boys. Another study of tomboys (Martin & Dinella, 2012) confi rmed that these girls were attracted not only to masculine but also to feminine activities. Despite the belief that their nonconforming gender behaviors signal a lesbian sexual orientation, such is not always the case (Showfety, 2008). No evidence exists that these girls experienced any abnormal hormone exposure during gestation, and thus there is no evidence of a biological basis for their gender-nonconforming behavior.

What does this research convey about the biological basis of gender identity? The evi- dence indicates that both genetics and prenatal exposure to testosterone infl uence gender- related behaviors, especially during childhood. As Table 6.3 shows, the relation to gender identity is much less clear. Babies may arrive primed to identify as male or female, but gender identity is not entirely dependent on any biological factor (Eliot, 2009). Of course, the appearance of the external genitals is also the main signal for a cascade of social

Table 6.3 Strength of Biological Infl uences on Gender-Related Behaviors and Gender Identity

Individuals with Sex Androgen Exposure Behavioral Effects Gender Identity

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

Female High levels during prenatal development

Preference for boys’ toys and play during childhood

Female

Sex change due to damage to penis— John/Joan (change at age 2 years)

Male Normal during prenatal development

Preferred boys’ clothing and activities; transitioned to male during adolescence

Male

Sex change due to damage to penis (change at age 7 months)

Male Normal during prenatal development

Some male-typical play; some sexual attraction to women

Female

Tomboys Female No evidence of abnormal exposure during prenatal development

Strong interest in boys’ toys and male- typical activities combined with interest in female- typical activities

Female

148 Developing Gender Identity

infl uences, making a distinction between the biological and other infl uences virtually impossible to disentangle.

Family Environment and Gender Development

Despite widely publicized claims that parents have little infl uence in children’s develop- ment (Harris, 1998; Knafo & Schwartz, 2009), the family context is critically important, including its role in gender development. Susan Witt (1997, p. 253) summarized the infl u- ences that shape gender attitudes: “These attitudes and behaviors are generally learned fi rst in the home and are then reinforced by the child’s peers, school experience, and television viewing. However, the strongest infl uence on gender role development seems to occur within the family setting, with parents passing on, both overtly and covertly, their own beliefs about gender.” Families, however, consist of more than parents (and sometimes fewer than two parents); siblings are also part of the family environment that infl uences gender development.

A majority of the research investigating family infl uences on gender development has concentrated on the infl uence of parents’ gender-related attitudes and behaviors. Campbell Leaper (2002) explained how this infl uence takes place through four processes. One process is modeling; children observe parents’ behavior. A second possibility for infl uence is differ- ential treatment of sons and daughters. A third avenue of infl uence is through the types of opportunities that parents furnish or encourage, such as toys, play activities, and household chores. A fourth possibility for parents’ infl uence comes through the extent to which parents monitor and supervise their children’s friends and activities. Figure 6.2 shows how these four

Parental Gender Ideology Conveyed Through

Modeling Differential Treatment

Monitoring Activities Opportunities

Observing mothers care for children, cook Seeing fathers take out trash, mow lawn

Requiring boys but not girls to take advanced math

Giving boys more freedom than girls

Giving dolls to girls but Legos to boys

Gender Stereotypical Behaviors

Figure 6.2 Routes of Parental Infl uence for Gender-Related Behaviors

Source: Information from “Parenting girls and boys” by Campbell Leaper. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1: Children and parenting (2nd ed.; pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Developing Gender Identity 149

routes of infl uence can create gender traditional behaviors; other choices could lessen gender traditional learning from parents.

Parents’ gender ideologies are infl uential on children’s gender development in both obvi- ous and subtle ways. A great deal of research indicates that fathers and mothers treat their sons and daughters differently with respect to verbal and emotional interactions, toy choices, encouragement of gender-typed play, sports participation, mathematics and science achieve- ment, and monitoring of children’s behavior (Endendijk et al., 2014; Leaper, 2002; Leavell, Tamis-LeMonda, Ruble, Zosuls, & Cabrera, 2012; Moon & Hoffman, 2008). The dimen- sion that has received the most study is how traditional or nontraditional parents are in terms of their gender beliefs and attitudes and how these parental differences are imparted to children (Davis & Wills, 2010; Tennenbaum & Leaper, 2002).

However, parents tend to differ from each other in terms of traditionalism, with fathers being more traditional than mothers (Kulik, 2002; Sidanius & Pena, 2003) and spending less time with children (Tennenbaum & Leaper, 2002). Despite the decreased contact, evidence suggests that fathers may exert greater infl uence than mothers in pushing children toward adopting traditional gender roles (Davis & Wills, 2010; Friedman et al., 2007), especially their sons (Endendijk et al., 2014; Peters, 1994). This effect is not restricted to families in the United States but also occurs in Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Australia.

Photo 6.2 When parents share household chores, children have the opportunity to observe nonstereotypical behaviors, which is related to increases in gender role fl exibility.

150 Developing Gender Identity

Variation occurs in ethnic groups within the United States. African American fathers tend to be more egalitarian (Hill, 2002) and more involved in child care (Leavell et al., 2012) than fathers in other ethnic groups. African American families without fathers tend to include gender role orientations that are even less traditional: Boys expressed lower and girls expressed higher evaluations of their masculinity (Mandara et al., 2005). Hispanic families differ; Hispanic women and men recalled less egalitarian families, with differences in parental attitudes and treatment for boys and girls during childhood and adolescence (McHale et al., 2005; Raffaelli & Ontai, 2004). Boys were allowed more freedom and privileges; girls were expected to perform more household chores. These differences in treatment were more pronounced for Hispanic families that were more strongly affi liated with Hispanic culture than for those more acculturated to the United States.

Evidence from families without fathers (MacCallum & Golombok, 2004) indicates that these children experience closer relationships with their mothers, and sons show more femi- nine (but no less masculine) behaviors than children from two-parent families. Children with lesbian mothers (Sutfi n, Fulcher, Bowles, & Patterson, 2008) and those with gay fathers (Goldberg, Kashy, & Smith, 2012) experienced less gender-stereotyped environments and held less traditional attitudes than children in heterosexual couples. Without fathers, chil- dren, especially girls, develop less traditional gender roles (Slavkin & Stright, 2000). Single- parent families headed by mothers produced children who were higher in traits considered masculine (more independent, assertive, and self-reliant) than two-parent families, in which girls reported more of a mixture of masculine and feminine traits. Women who work outside the home provide nontraditional models and have daughters who showed more gender role fl exibility (Levy, 1989) and sons and daughters who expressed more egalitarian attitudes toward family life than other children (Riggio & Desrochers, 2005). Thus, mothers are more likely to encourage gender egalitarianism than are fathers, and the presence of a father pushes children toward traditional gender roles. However, a father with egalitarian gender beliefs is a powerful model, pushing children toward an egalitarian gender role ideology (Davis & Wills, 2010).

Even parents with a commitment to gender equality often continue to create very differ- ent environments for boys and girls by continuing to model gender-stereotypical behavior in the household and through the environments they create for their children (Sabattini & Leaper, 2004). For example, most parents continue to demonstrate traditional divisions of household chores and also make different choices for clothing, room decorations, and toys for girls versus boys. Parents talk differently to daughters than to sons (Leaper, Anderson, & Sanders, 1998); the stories that they tell differ according to children’s gender (Fiese & Skill- man, 2000). One study (Peters, 1994) found that adolescent sons got to use the family car more than adolescent daughters, who were more restricted in their curfews than the sons. Another big difference in gender socialization within families lies in the area of household chores, which tend to be sharply gendered. This gendering applies both to parents who perform household work and to the chores assigned to daughters versus sons (Antill, Good- now, Russell, & Cotton, 1996; Shellenbarger, 2006). This division affects skills as well as attitudes.

The presence and the gender of siblings also infl uence gender socialization within fami- lies: “Through their everyday interactions, siblings can infl uence each other by serving as models, advisors, social partners and combatants” (McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003, p. 140). The presence of siblings also alters the family context in ways that relate to gender. For example, Israeli children with younger siblings developed gender constancy earlier than others (Karniol, 2009). Children who interacted more with their parents showed less gender role fl exibility than children who spent less time with their parents, and children with fewer

Developing Gender Identity 151

siblings showed more gender role fl exibility than those with more brothers and sisters (Levy, 1989). Indeed, siblings may be more important than parents in developing gender role fl ex- ibility (Katz & Ksansnak, 1994). Same-sex siblings showed an especially important effect in the development of gender fl exibility—either increasing or decreasing fl exibility, depending on siblings’ attitudes.

Longitudinal studies have demonstrated the infl uence of siblings by measuring fi rst-born and second-born children, following them over years. Results from one study (McHale, Updegraff, Helms-Erikson, & Crouter, 2001) indicated that the qualities of fi rst-born chil- dren during the fi rst-year assessment appeared in second-born children 3 years later. Another study (Crouter et al., 2007) indicated that boys with younger brothers in families with traditional gender ideology became more traditional over time, but all other confi gurations produced children and adolescents who became more egalitarian over time. Therefore, sib- ling infl uences are not a simple matter of modeling, and birth order appears to be important in the process.

The gender composition of siblings may also interact in ways that are important for gender socialization. A study that compared families with a girl and a boy to families with siblings of only one sex found stronger gender typing in the latter (McHale et al., 1999), and once again, fathers were infl uential in creating traditional gender role ideology. The mixed-gender siblings seemed to be related to traditional gender roles—one child of each gender is avail- able to do the activities stereotypically associated with chores (Crouter, Manke, & McHale, 1995). When the children are all boys, someone still has to do the dishes—a situation that may prompt fl exibility. Table 6.4 summarizes some of the ways that siblings can infl uence gender development and attitudes.

Therefore, families are important for gender socialization in many ways, including parents’ attitudes and behavior, the gendered environment of the home, and the complex infl uence of siblings. Gender socialization also occurs outside the family environment, and as children get older, they encounter a wide variety of others who send messages about gender and gender-related behaviors.

Peers and Gender Development

Interaction with age-mates also infl uences children and adolescents to adopt gender- typical behaviors. Beginning at about age 3, children develop a preference for same-sex playmates (Maccoby, 2002). These preferences become stronger over the next few years,

Table 6.4 Sibling Infl uence on Gender Role Development

Children Outcome of Infl uence

Whose siblings are younger Develop gender constancy sooner

With fewer siblings Show more gender role fl exibility

With older siblings Develop gender roles similar to those siblings

Who are boys with young brothers Become more gender traditional over time

With both brothers and sisters Tend to develop more egalitarian gender attitudes

Who have siblings the same sex as they are Tend to develop more traditional gender attitudes

152 Developing Gender Identity

making gender segregation one of the most prominent features of elementary school children’s peer interactions. Indeed, elementary school children spend between 50% and 60% of their time with same-gender peers (Martin & Fabes, 2001). Adults often urge children toward same-gender peers, but even when adults try to get children to play in mixed-gender groups, the tendency toward gender segregation usually prevails. Reactions from peers concerning gender-related behaviors furnish information that contributes to self-concept (Smith & Leaper, 2006).

The types of relationships and activities that occur in groups of girls typically differ from those in groups of boys (Maccoby, 2002). Boys tend to be rougher, more competitive, more likely to form a hierarchy, and less likely to play near adults. Girls often (but not always) fi nd boys’ activities and interaction style unappealing, so many girls do not want to play with boys. Those girls who do face challenges in developing a “tomboy” gender identity (Paechter & Clark, 2007). Boys resist girls joining their play groups, even during elementary school, and both peers and parents exert increasing pressure on tomboys to become more feminine.

Boys who do not maintain gender segregation face harsher sanctions, as Brandon in this chapter’s headline story demonstrated. Both girls and boys devalued children who violated gender norms for appearance and, to a lesser extent, for behaviors (Blakemore, 2003; Horn, 2007). During the school years, children and adolescents tend to have infl exible gender roles, so peer pressure plays a part in maintaining traditional gender-related behaviors. Part of that pressure is bullying directed at children who fail to conform to gender roles, especially boys (Young & Sweeting, 2004). Therefore, peers often operate as the “gender police,” acting to maintain infl exible gender roles for children and adolescents.

Peers may also act to promote gender fl exibility, which often occurs during the college years but may occur earlier—even during preschool. For example, situations in preschool that involve children playing alone tend to produce gender-typical play, but when girls play with boys, the girls chose more masculine play activities, and when boys interacted with teachers, they chose more feminine activities than when they played alone (Goble, Martin, Hanish, & Fabes, 2012). Peers are a major factor in the trend for both men and women to become less traditional in their gender attitudes during four years of college (Bryant, 2003). Thus peers may act to promote or to curtail gender fl exibility and do each at different times during development.

The Media and Gender Development

Print, broadcast, fi lm, and electronic media are an integral part of daily life for most people in wealthy countries, and gender portrayals are daily events for those who are exposed to these media. Children, adolescents, and adults learn about gender from entertainment programming, advertisements, video games, the Internet, and news reports. These media begin to infl uence children as early as their families do. Entertainment programs show men, women, boys, and girls in a wide variety of situations, and these programs transmit messages about what is desirable and attractive in each gender. Advertising sends signals about gender as well as sells products. News reports cover gender research, and examin- ing the style of the news report as well as the content reveals the attitude behind the story (Brescoll & Lafrance, 2004).

Media portrayals can be so powerful and persuasive that these depictions become the standard on which people judge what is normal and desirable for their own lives. Indeed, the media can be more important than personal experience in shaping attitudes and behav- ior, and this view is compatible with the cultivation theory of media effects (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994). This theory holds that depictions in the media cultivate beliefs

Developing Gender Identity 153

and attitudes about the real world, leading people to imagine that their lives should match the media depictions.

One reason that the media have become so persuasive is the tendency toward what Gregg Easterbrook (1996) called synthesized realism , a mixture of actual information with phony details blended into a realistic portrayal that is really fi ction. When this mixture is done with suffi cient skill, people cannot tell the difference. Thus, people absorb information that is a toxic blend of reality and fi ction and use this information as a basis by which to judge their own (and others’) behavior. Children are especially vulnerable because their cognitive limi- tations make them unable to think critically about the portrayals, leaving them even more vulnerable to media misinformation.

Gender Bias in the Media

A number of analyses have revealed how the media provide inaccurate and systematically biased information about gender. One of the prime assumptions is that women and men are different. As Janet Bing (1999, p. 5) said, “The media continue to seek new ways to ask ‘How are men and women different?’” By assuming difference, drawing women and men into stereotypical categories, and then presenting these stereotypical depictions as attractive, the media perpetuate restrictive roles for both men and women. These depictions appear in television entertainment programming, television commercials, movies, magazines, music videos, and video games.

Television is almost unavoidable for people in the United States. Most homes have at least one (and many have more than one) television. Although the American Academy of Pedi- atrics (2011) recommends against television viewing for children younger than 3 years old, 1-year-old children average over 2 hours of viewing per day, and 3-year-old children average over 3 hours. In addition, the television has become background in many families; children are exposed to television programming that others in the family choose (Lapierre, Taylor Piotrowski, & Linebarger, 2012). Thus television has the opportunity for infl uence, includ- ing affecting very young children. Adolescents watch less television than children, but those who were heavy viewers during childhood tend to continue that habit (Marshall, Gorely, & Biddle, 2006).

Male characters on television are older and occupy more prestigious positions than female characters (Glascock, 2001; Signorielli, 2004). Men also are more often the leading characters in drama and adventure programs (Lauzen, Dozier, & Horan, 2008) and in children’s program- ming (Hentges & Case, 2013), activities that take these characters away from home and family relationships. In family programming, male and female characters express affection to other family members at equal rates, but male characters receive more affection than female char- acters, including sons receiving more affection than daughters (Callister & Robinson, 2010).

These representations make women less visible and credible on television and limit men by restricting them to aggressive, competitive roles. Indeed, men are disproportionately depicted as police offi cers and criminals in television dramas (Scharrer, 2001). In television entertainment programming, female characters are younger, less likely to be employed, and more likely to appear in secondary and comedy roles than are male characters (Signorielli, 2004). Women are also less likely to use the plot device of directly addressing the audience, which builds rapport and trust (Lauzen & Deiss, 2009). Thus, women are less signifi cant than men on television entertainment programming. About 60% of children’s programming worldwide originates in North American, so this programming spreads these images and values across the world (Götz, 2009). The situation is similar in television advertising (see According to the Media and According to the Research).

154 Developing Gender Identity

The underrepresentation of women also occurs in movies. In top-grossing movies from the 1940s through the 1980s, women appeared less frequently than men (Bazzini, McIntosh, Smith, Cook, & Harris, 1997). This underrepresentation was true for women in both primary and secondary roles, and it applied more strongly to older than younger women. In addition, older women were portrayed in less favorable ways than older men. The underrepresenta- tion and age bias have continued; an analysis of the 100 top fi lms in the United States in 2002 (Lauzen & Dozier, 2005) and a similar analysis for the fi lms from 2007–2012 (Smith, Choueiti, Scofi eld, & Pieper, 2013) revealed similar patterns. Thus, the lower visibility for women extends to movies.

Some people (including network programmers and studio executives) argue that television and movies furnish entertainment, and people know that the depictions are not accurate. Despite this knowledge, the gender messages on those programs have the power to infl u- ence people when they experience similar characters in real life (Murphy, 1998). Knowing that a character is fi ctional does not decrease that character’s appeal—they can still infl uence attitudes and beliefs (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2008). Therefore, media portrayals have the power to infl uence, and this process occurs for people of all ages.

According to the Media . . . Women are Young, Attractive, and Subordinate—in Television Commercials

Looking at television commercials in countries around the world, women and men often vary in the roles they play, the products they promote, and the settings they occupy, but they also differ in their presence. In some countries, such as the United States (Ganahl, Prinsen, & Netzley, 2003), Great Britain (Lewin-Jones & Mitra, 2009), Spain (Martínez, Nicolás, & Salas, 2013), and Germany, China, Brazil, Canafa, and Thailand (Paek, Nelson, & Vilela, 2011), male characters are more common in advertisements than women are; in other countries, such as Japan, Tai- wan, and Malaysia (Bresnahan, Inoue, Liu, & Nishida, 2001) and in Saudi Arabia ( Nassif & Gunter, 2008), representation is more equal. However, even in countries with an equal frequency of female and male characters, the portrayals are stereotypi- cal, not egalitarian.

One common difference around the world in television advertising is the presen- tation of female characters that are younger than their male counterparts. This age difference appeared in analyses of television advertising in the United States (Ganahl et al., 2003), Great Britain and Zimbabwe (Furnham, Pallangyo, & Gunter, 2001), Korea (Kim & Lowry, 2005), Turkey (Uray & Burnaz, 2003), Hong Kong, Indone- sia, and throughout Europe (Furnham & Mak, 1999). Also, women are signifi cantly more likely to appear in advertisements for personal care products (Bresnahan et al., 2001; Ganahl et al., 2003), which emphasize the value of the product in improv- ing beauty. The combination of age and attractiveness results in a preponderance of attractive young women in television advertising.

The young, attractive women in television commercials may also be portrayed as dependent or subordinate (Furnham & Mak, 1999; Furnham et al., 2001; Ganahl et al., 2003; Kim & Lowry, 2005), less authoritative and credible than men (Uray & Burnaz, 2003), and less intelligent than men (Furnham et al., 2001). Women are more likely than men to appear in home settings and with children (Nassif & Gunter, 2008), which emphasizes another stereotype. Thus, in television advertising around the world, women’s image represents a stereotype of idealized femininity.

Developing Gender Identity 155

According to the Research . . . Women’s Roles Have Changed More Than Commercials Portray

Women’s roles have changed a great deal over the past 30 years, but portrayals of women on television have not kept pace. Although the number of female charac- ters and their roles have altered since early 1970s television (Kahlenberg & Hein, 2010; Nassif & Gunter, 2008), these alterations do not represent the actual changes in women’s employment and responsibilities. Women’s lives have changed more than what commercials portray.

Women’s roles have changed in many countries around the world. As Kwangok Kim and Dennis Lowry (2005, p. 901) described the situation, “television commer- cials are a lagging social indicator of role changes.” Women have entered the work- force, professions, and politics not only in North America, Australia, and Europe but also in Korea (Kim & Lowry, 2005); Japan, Taiwan, and Malaysia (Bresnahan et al., 2001); and Turkey (Uray & Burnaz, 2003).

Gender stereotyping has decreased in commercials in Great Britain (Furnham & Saar, 2005) and Portugal (Neto & Silva, 2009) more than in the United States (Ganahl et al., 2003) but remains high in Poland (Furnham & Saar, 2005), Zim- babwe (Furnham et al., 2001), and throughout Europe (Furnham & Mak, 1999). An analysis of prime time commercials in Japan, Malaysia, and Taiwan (Bresnahan et al., 2001) indicated that the majority depicted women and men in nonstereotypi- cal situations, which would more closely match women’s lives. Another analysis of commercials on Korean television (Eun & Kim, 2006) indicated that a transition occurred between 1985 and 2005; women and men started performing similar rather than gender-stereotyped activities.

These images may even be losing the power to shape women’s aspirations. A study that tested the power of commercials to infl uence women’s career aspira- tions (Yoder, Christopher, & Holmes, 2008) reported that an earlier study had found that exposure to sexist commercials diminished women’s aspirations, but their study did not. Indeed, women’s career aspirations had become similar to men’s. The study hinted that sexist advertising has not lost all its power, but that infl uence seems diminished.

Children and Media

For children, television is probably the most infl uential medium because it is such a part of most of their lives (Witt, 2000). Preschool children average about 30 hours a week of TV viewing, including about 20,000 commercial advertisements a year. In addition, television furnishes a background in many families, providing more chances for exposure to its mes- sages (Lapierre et al., 2012). Television has the power to teach positive attitudes and behav- iors, but researchers, critics, and parents worry about the negative messages that children receive. Many of those concerns have centered on the topics of violence and encouragement for smoking and drinking, but the effect of gender stereotypes has also been an issue. For example, a longitudinal study of children’s self-esteem (Martins & Harrison, 2012) showed that a higher rate of television viewing was associated with decreased levels of self-esteem among African American boys and both African American and White girls.

156 Developing Gender Identity

The gender bias in programming for adults also appears in children’s television (Witt, 2000). Boys are portrayed as more powerful, smart, ambitious, competitive, and violent; girls appear as more timid, warm, sensitive, peaceful, and attractive. An analysis of chil- dren’s favorite TV programs suggested that both girls and boys chose programs with more gender-neutral portrayals as their favorites (Aubrey & Harrison, 2004). Favorite programs still contained gender stereotyping, especially for the male gender role, and some children were more attracted than other to these stereotypical portrayals.

These gender biases in children’s entertainment programming appear in advertisements on children’s television more strongly than in adult programming (Hentges, Bartsch, & Meier, 2007). Commercials are of great interest for children’s television viewing because children attend to the commercials more than to the regular programming (Larson, 2003). According to one analysis (Larson, 2001), when commercials depict girls and boys together, the gender stereotyping is minimal. However, when either gender appears alone in a com- mercial, gender stereotypes abound, and children see girls in kitchen settings and boys being violent. Similar stereotyping appeared in a study that examined the voice-overs for children’s commercials (Johnson & Young, 2002). A longitudinal analysis of television advertising directed toward children (Maher & Childs, 2003) indicated a shift toward gender-neutral advertising since 1975, and a recent analysis of commercials on the Nickelodeon network (Kahlenberg & Hein, 2010) indicated that girls appeared slightly more often than boys. However, gender stereotyping remains in more subtle forms. For example, when an adver- tisement features both a girl and a boy, the boy is likely to be the main character; when an advertisement shows a child playing actively or outside, that child is likely to be a boy. Gender bias has decreased, but not disappeared, from advertising on children’s television.

Older children and adolescents have expanded opportunities for media infl uence, including fi lms and video games as well as print media such as comics, magazines, and literature. Read- ing has become less popular and video games more popular leisure activities for children and adolescents (Nippold, Duthie, & Larsen, 2005). Video games were sharply gendered during the early years of their development, but girls and women began to enter the world of gaming in larger numbers in the mid-1990s (Williams, 2003). Nevertheless, the video game market remains strongly oriented toward boys and men, and the portrayals of girls and women in video games tend to be very stereotypical (Dickerman, Christensen, & Kerl-McClain, 2008; Ivory, 2006) and highly sexualized, which is a strategy that works in terms of sales (Near, 2013).

Adolescents watch less television than children or adults, but they too receive messages from the programming they see (Signorielli, 1998). For adolescent girls as for women, tele- vision, magazines, movies, and music videos send the message that looks count, often more than anything else (Smith et al., 2013). The most important aspects are body image and weight. Most of the attractive girls and women on television are very thin, and this mes- sage comes across to adolescent girls (Hentges et al., 2007). Indeed, adolescent girls who watched more hours of romantic television oriented toward young women reported lower body satisfaction than girls who watched fewer hours of TV (Eggermont, Beullens, & van den Bulck, 2005). Television and movies also send messages about the importance of getting and keeping a boyfriend as well as unrealistic images of career possibilities.

Despite being more plentiful and powerful in media portrayals, adolescent boys also are subject to unfl attering and unrealistic television and movie depictions (Greven, 2002). The prominence of violence is the most dramatic feature associated with boys in the media, and concern over bullying has led to various depictions of such situations successfully resolved by violence. In addition, adolescent boys often appear as inept with girls and obsessed with sex. This combination furnishes the material for many teen comedies in which boys appear as stereotypes. Table 6.5 summarizes some of the gender stereotyping that appears in media oriented toward children and young adolescents.

Developing Gender Identity 157

The widespread gender stereotyping that appears in the media, combined with the power of the media to shape attitudes and behavior, has led several groups to formulate guidelines for helping parents to teach their children to be media literate. Common Sense Media (2015) is an organization for parents and educators who strive to help educate children about media infl uence and bias and counteract some of the negative effects that media can convey, includ- ing gender stereotyping. The American Academy of Pediatrics (2010) advocates for media education and provides materials to help parents teach their children how to analyze media messages in critical ways. The power of media portrayals is well recognized, and individu- als as well as organizations are attempting to counter these powerful messages that include gender stereotyping.

Considering Diversity

Most children adopt the gender-related behaviors typical for their biological sex, but Bran- don, whose story began this chapter, did not. He experienced increasing pressure to do so (Rosin, 2008). Parents, especially fathers, tend to feel negatively about gender nonconfor- mity, as a study with 4- and 5-year-old boys showed (Raag & Rackliff, 1998). These boys believed that their fathers would think it was “good” if they played with boys’ toys and “bad” if they played with girls’ toys. None of the boys who imagined their fathers would disapprove actually played with girls’ toys in an observed play situation. Boys who make many such cross-gender choices face a great deal of social censure, bullying, and even violence (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014).

What behaviors signal variation in gender-typical behaviors and what behaviors indicate some problem in developing gender identity? As Brandon’s mother learned, this question is diffi cult to answer, and even experts disagree. One way to understand children who fail to conform to typical gender behavior is to focus not only on the behaviors but also on the extent to which they exhibit these behaviors (Knafo, Iervolino, & Plomin, 2005; Martin & Dinella, 2012). Like Brandon, some boys exhibit preferences and play behaviors more typi- cal of girls, but these boys may either like or reject activities typical of boys. Likewise, tom- boys may accept or reject activities typical of girls. Children, especially girls, who combine gender-conforming and nonconforming behaviors may be well accepted. For example, Bruce

Table 6.5 Gender Portrayals in Media for Children and Adolescents

Girls Boys

On Children’s Television

Are timid, warm, sensitive, peaceful, and attractive Are powerful, smart, ambitious, and violent Appear as background characters in commercials Appear as main characters in commercials Appear in the kitchen on commercials Behave violently in commercials Who view programs chose those with gender-neutral portrayals as favorites

Who view programs chose those with gender- neutral portrayals as favorites

In Media Aimed at Adolescents

Are portrayed in sexualized ways in video games Are portrayed as obsessed by sex in television and in movies

Receive messages that looks are important Receive messages that violence is a way to solve problems

Receive messages about the importance of having a boyfriend

158 Developing Gender Identity

Jenner was a spectacular athlete, which gained him the acceptance of his family and peers but delayed his reconciliation with his female gender identity (Bissinger, 2015). However, the combination of persistent nonconforming gender behaviors and rejection of gender-typical behaviors may be indicative of gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is among the classifi cations of behavior disorders in the American Psy- chiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), making it an offi cial psychiatric diagnosis. The fourth edition of the DSM (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) restricted this disorder to children, but the fi fth edition ( DSM-5 ) included all ages in the diagnosis. Exhibiting interests and behaviors typical of the other gender is not suffi cient to result in this diagnosis. Individuals must exhibit at least six of the following symptoms: (1) cross-sex behaviors, (2) cross-sex toy and activity preferences, (3) cross-sex peer affi liation, (4) cross-dressing, (5) a stated desire to be the other sex, (6) a rejection of same-sex toys and activities, (7) a rejection of one’s sexual anatomy, and (8) a desire for the appearance and anatomy of the other sex.

Richard Green (1987) conducted a longitudinal study of boys who showed signs of gender dysphoria to discover differences between these boys and others who had more typical gender role development. His study indicated that some of these boys had received reinforcement and others were ignored by parents for their cross-gender behaviors. This observation is consistent with later research (Knafo et al., 2005), which indicated that gender dysphoria has an environmental component and also biological components that include genetics and possibly prenatal hormone exposure (Veale, Clarke, & Lomax, 2010).

Determining which children will continue in their dissatisfaction with their sex is a critical issue for action (Dreger, 2009). One important criterion is the expressed lack of acceptance, even hatred, of one’s own sex rather than attraction to activities typical of the other sex (Zucker, 2002). This component may lead individuals to seek ways to change their biological sex, including hormone therapy and a series of surgeries to bring their bodies in line with the gender identity.

Many children who do not conform to gender stereotypes fall into the category of ques- tioning gender identity rather than rejecting their biological sex, and this questioning may persist for years. These gender questioning young people may not pursue a transition to the other sex; some come to identity with their biological sex, whereas other develop a lesbian or gay sexual orientation (American Psychological Association [APA], 2015). Thus the issues of gender dysphoria and sexual orientation are intertwined but not identical concepts.

Studies on girls with gender dysphoria are much less common than research with boys. Boys are more than six times more likely than girls to receive a clinical referral (Zucker, Bradley, & Sanikhani, 1997), and one factor in this situation is the greater social tolerance for cross-gender behaviors of girls (Lippa, 2008). Indeed, girls tend to see advantages in being boys (Baumgartner, in Tavris & Wade, 1984). When asked what would happen if they changed sex, elementary school girls imagined advantages, whereas boys imagined disaster. Adults make similar judgments, believing that being male offers advantages and being female presents disadvantages (Cann & Vann, 1995). The widespread perception of advantages for males may be a factor in considering boys abnormal when they want to change their sex. However, a follow-up study of girls with gender dysphoria (Drummond, Peterson-Badali, Bradley, & Zucker, 2008) found that the percentages of nonheterosexual and gender dys- phoric women were similar to the percentages of boys (Green, 1987).

The adolescents and adults who continue to experience gender dysphoria may say they feel “trapped in the wrong body,” a sentiment that many people fi nd perplexing. How could a person fail to understand and accept his or her sex? Research has examined genetic and hormonal possibilities for gender dysphoria (Erickson-Schroth, 2013). Brain scans of individuals with gender dysphoria were more similar to those of the other sex than their

Developing Gender Identity 159

own biological sex, which suggests a situation very much like what individuals with gender dysphoria describe—their brains don’t match their bodies (Molo et al., 2006). Others fi nd these studies unpersuasive (Bailey & Triea, 2007) and contend that advocates of hormonal and surgical interventions urge unnecessary action.

Individuals with gender dysphoria have advocated for the acceptance of gender dysphoric individuals and treatment with medical interventions that would make bodies more compat- ible with gender identity, including hormones and surgical interventions (Rosin, 2008). The term transsexual describes these individuals, and those who are in the process of acquiring a new sex often refer to themselves as transgendered individuals . These concepts and terminol- ogy confuse many people, who assume that biological sex, gender, and sexual orientation all go together (Carr, 2005). All are actually separable. Feeling “trapped in the wrong body” (gender dysphoria) does not mean that the person is homosexual (has feelings of sexual attraction for people of one’s own sex). Transvestism (dressing in clothing appropriate to the other gender) is associated with gender dysphoria but may also occur as a sexual fetish (receiving sexual pleasure from the behavior) rather than an expression of gender dissatisfac- tion. Thus, these phenomena may overlap, but they are separable. However, dealing with sexuality and sexual orientation is an issue for individuals who transition from male to female or female to male (APA, 2015). For example, Bruce Jenner was not a gay man; he was heterosexual man with a female gender identity (Bissinger, 2015). After the transition, Caitlyn Jenner was still attracted to women but decided to be asexual until she sorted out her sexuality.

In addition, a large majority of gay men and lesbians have no gender dysphoria and no gender identity confusion. Only 17% of male transvestites reported feeling trapped in a man’s body (Docter & Prince, 1997). Therefore, dissatisfaction with one’s gender may be associated with gender-nonconforming behaviors, but most individuals who exhibit these behaviors are not showing symptoms of gender dysphoria.

During childhood and adolescence, these individuals typically experience problems, most often associated with depression, and individuals who seek sexual reassignment face chal- lenges in being accepted by society (Splete, 2005). However, sexual reassignment is often successful in resolving many of their problems (Cohen-Kettenis, Delemarre-van de Waal, & Gooren, 2008; Murad et al., 2010). After surgery, their gender dysphoria, as well as their social and sexual functioning, improves, and their overall health is good.

These outcomes suggest medical intervention as a solution for gender dysphoria, but oth- ers (Diamond, Pardo, & Butterworth, 2011) instead argue for an expanded model of gender identity that includes more than the biological dichotomy of male and female. In a set of guidelines for services to individuals with gender dysphoria, the American Psychological Association (2015), emphasized that getting beyond the gender binary of male and female is a necessary step in offering appropriate services to individuals with gender dysphoria. Intersex conditions have suggested that there may be more than two sexes; perhaps gender identity should be similarly inclusive.

Summary

The process of gender development may begin during infancy; however, between ages 2 and 3, most children learn to apply gender labels and to understand some behaviors and features as stereotypically associated with gender. Their understanding of gender is far from complete, however, and children may be 6 or 7 years old before they have a complete understanding of all the components of gender, including gender constancy, gender consistency, and gender stability.

When children develop an understanding of gender, they tend to be rigid and infl exible in their application of gender rules to themselves and others, but the peak period of infl exibility

160 Developing Gender Identity

is relatively short and occurs between ages 5 and 7. Gender stereotyping tends to decrease during adolescence and adulthood, indicating that additional gender development occurs after childhood.

Biology infl uences gender development, but its effects are diffi cult to separate from social infl uences because the identifi cation of a child’s genitals as male or female prompts a cascade of social events related to gender development. Prenatal hormone exposure affects gender- typed behaviors more than gender identity.

Families exert an important infl uence on the gender socialization of children. Parents may convey gendered messages through modeling, different treatment of boys and girls, creat- ing opportunities for different types of behaviors, and differential monitoring of activities. Traditional families tend to have children with more traditional gender attitudes, and fathers tend to be the family member whose infl uence promotes traditional gender behaviors. Even parents who attempt to avoid gender stereotyping have diffi culties; the tendency to assign girls and boys gender-typical chores is strong, and both parents and siblings often create a gendered environment for children. Peers also tend to push children and adolescents toward infl exible gender role behaviors.

The media infl uence all members of society, and that infl uence includes gender stereotyp- ing in television entertainment programming and commercials, movies, video games, com- ics, and literature. Girls and boys are subject to similar gender stereotyping in programming oriented toward children, even educational television and children’s books. Thus, media exposure is a strong force in establishing and perpetuating traditional gender roles.

The large majority of children develop gender identities that are consistent with their biological sex, but some do not. Those children who express preferences and enact behaviors typical of the other gender and reject those typical of their own prompt concern among par- ents, but a diagnosis of gender dysphoria requires a persistent identifi cation with and desire to be the other gender. As they mature, many of these individuals do not continue with their gender dysphoria (but many do develop nonheterosexual sexual orientation); other do and seek sexual reassignment surgery to fulfi ll their wish to be the other gender.

Glossary

gender constancy the knowledge that gender is a permanent characteristic and will not change with superfi cial alterations.

gender identity individual identifi cation of self as female or male. gender dysphoria a disorder that occurs when a child rejects the gender role that corre-

sponds to biological sex and adopts cross-gender behaviors and possibly a cross-gender identity.

synthesized realism a mixture of actual information with phony details into a realistic portrayal that is really fi ction.

transsexual an individual who receives hormonal and surgical treatment to be changed to the other sex.

Suggested Readings

Eliot, Lise. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain . Boston: Houghton Miffl in Harcourt. Eliot’s book reviews the research on the physiological and social infl uences on sex and gender. She combines

personal stories with her perspective as a neuroscientist for a thoughtful yet readable presentation. Chapters 1 – 3 are especially relevant to gender identity.

Pollack, William. (1998). Real boys. New York: Holt. The fi rst two chapters of Pollack’s book about boys explore the rigid gender role socialization that boys undergo

and the damage that this socialization can do to boys.

Developing Gender Identity 161

Ruble, Diane N.; Martin, Carol Lynn; & Berenbaum, Sheri A. (2006). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 858–932). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. This thorough review of gender development examines the biological, social, and cognitive approaches and

attempts to integrate these approaches.

Suggested Websites

William Pollack, author of Real Boys , has his own website (www.williampollack.com) where he offers a variety of workbooks and parent handbooks to help in encouraging boys to healthy manhood. His talks and interviews also appear in a number of websites, including YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaTEefLV7ak ) .

Girls Incorporated is an organization devoted to inspiring girls to be strong, smart and bold. Their website (https://www.girlsinc-online.org/) includes information for adults who want to help girls achieve these goals and games and exercises for girls.

Several organization offer support for transgender individuals and for those with gender identity disorder. The Intersex Society of North American maintains a webpage (http://www.isna.org/) that includes informa- tion and links, one of which will assist interested individuals in fi nd a support group. The International Foundation for Gender Education (www.ifge.org) is devoted to promoting self-defi nition and providing information about transgender individuals. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) website maintains a page (http://www.glaad.org/transgender/resources) with an extensive list of resource links related to transgender issues.

References

Ahlqvist, Sheana; Halim, May Ling; Greulich, Faith K.; Lurye, Leah E.; & Ruble, Diane. (2013). The potential benefi ts and risks of identifying as a tomboy: A social identity perspective. Self & Identity, 12 (5), 563–581.

Alexander, Gerianne M. (2003). An evolutionary perspective of sex-typed toy preference: Pink, blue and the brain. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 , 7–14.

Alfi eri, Thomas; Ruble, Diane N.; & Higgins, E. Tory. (1996). Gender stereotypes during adolescence: Devel- opmental changes and the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 32 , 1129–1137.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2010). Policy statement—media education. Pediatrics, 126 (5), 1012–1017. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2011). Media use in children younger than 2 years. Pediatrics, 128 (5),

1040–1045. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., Text

revision). Washington, DC: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Wash-

ington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender

nonconforming people. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf Antill, John K.; Goodnow, Jacqueline J.; Russell, Graeme; & Cotton, Sandra. (1996). The infl uence of parents

and family context on children’s involvement in household tasks. Sex Roles, 34 , 215–236. Aubrey, Jennifer Stevens; & Harrison, Kristen. (2004). The gender-role content of children’s favorite television

programs and its links to their gender-related perceptions. Media Psychology, 6 , 111–146. Auyeung, Bonnie; Baron-Cohen, Simon; Ashwin, Emma; Knickmeyer, Rebecca; Taylor, Kevin; Hackett, Gerald;

Hines, Melissa. (2009). Fetal testosterone predicts sexually differentiated childhood behavior in girls and in boys. Psychological Science, 20 (2), 144–148.

Bailey, J. Michael; Bechtold, Kathleen T.; & Berenbaum, Sheri A. (2002). Who are tomboys and why should we study them? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31 , 333–341.

Bailey, J. Michael; & Triea, Kiira. (2007). What many transgender activists don’t want you to know: And why you should know it anyway. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 50 (4), 521–534.

Bartini, Maria. (2006). Gender role fl exibility in early adolescence: Developmental change in attitudes, self- perceptions, and behaviors. Sex Roles, 55 (3/4), 233–245.

Bazzini, Doris G.; McIntosh, William D.; Smith, Stephen M.; Cook, Sabrina; & Harris, Caleigh. (1997). The aging woman in popular fi lm: Underrepresented, unattractive, unfriendly, and unintelligent. Sex Roles, 36 , 531–543.

162 Developing Gender Identity

Berenbaum, Sheri A. (2006). Psychological outcome in children with disorders of sex development: Implications for treatment and understanding typical development. Annual Review of Sex Research, 17 , 1–38.

Berenbaum, Sheri A.; Blakemore, Judith; & Beltz, Adriene. (2011). A role for biology in gender-related behavior. Sex Roles, 64 (11/12), 804–825.

Berenbaum, Sheri A.; & Hines, Melissa. (1992). Early androgens are related to childhood sex-typed toy prefer- ences. Psychological Science, 3 , 203–206.

Bing, Janet. (1999). Brain sex: How the media report and distort brain research. Women and Language, 22 , 4–12. Bissinger, Buzz. (2015, June 30). Caitlyn Jenner: The full story . Vanity Fair. Retrieved December 20, 2015, from

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-cover-annie-leibovitz Blakemore, Judith E. Owen. (2003). Children’s beliefs about violating gender norms: Boys shouldn’t look like

girls, and girls shouldn’t act like boys. Sex Roles, 48 , 411–419. Bradley, Susan J.; Oliver, Gillian D.; Chernick, A. B.; & Zucker, Kenneth J. (1998). Experiment of nurture:

Ablatio penis at 2 months, sex reassignment at 7 months, and a psychosexual follow-up in young adulthood. Pediatrics, 102 , 131–132.

Brescoll, Victoria; & LaFrance, Marianne. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 13 (8), 515–520.

Bresnahan, Mary Jiang; Inoue, Yasuhiro; Liu, Wen Ying; & Nishida, Tsukasa. (2001). Changing gender roles in prime-time commercials in Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. Sex Roles, 45 , 117–131.

Bryant, Alyssa N. (2003). Changes in attitudes toward women’s roles: Predicting gender-role traditionalism among college students. Sex Roles, 48 , 131–142.

Burri, Andrea; Cherkas, Lynn; Spector, Timothy; & Rahman, Qazi. (2011). Genetic and environmental infl u- ences on female sexual orientation, childhood gender typicality and adult gender identity. PLoS One, 6 (7), e21982.

Burt, Keith B.; & Scott, Jacqueline. (2002). Parent and adolescent gender role attitudes in 1990s Great Britain. Sex Roles, 46 , 239–245.

Callister, Mark A.; & Robinson, Tom. (2010). Content analysis of physical affection within television families during the 2006–2007 season of US children’s programming. Journal of Children & Media, 4 (2), 155–173.

Campbell, Anne; Shirley, Louisa; & Caygill, Lisa. (2002). Sex-typed preferences in three domains: Do two-year- olds need cognitive variables? British Journal of Psychology, 93 , 203–217.

Cann, Arnie; & Vann, Elizabeth D. (1995). Implications of sex and gender differences for self: Perceived advan- tages and disadvantages of being the other gender. Sex Roles, 33 , 531–541.

Carr, C. Lynn. (2004). Where have all the tomboys gone? Teen tales of agency and compulsory femininity . Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Carr, C. Lynn. (2005). Tomboysim or lesbianism? Beyond sex/gender/sexual confl ation. Sex Roles, 53 , 119–131.

Carr, C. Lynn. (2007). Where have all the tomboys gone? Women’s accounts of gender in adolescence. Sex Roles, 56 (7/8), 439–448.

Carter, Jason D.; Hall, Judith A.; Carney, Dana R.; & Rosip, Janelle C. (2006). Individual differences in the acceptance of stereotyping. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 (6), 1103–1118.

Carver, Priscilla R.; Yunger, Jennifer L.; & Perry, David G. (2003). Gender identity and adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49 , 95–109.

Chauhan, Gargi Singh; Shastri, Jigisha; & Mohite, Prerana. (2005). Development of gender constancy in pre- schoolers. Psychological Studies, 50 , 62–71.

Christian, Harry. (1994). The making of anti-sexist men . London: Routledge. Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T.; Delemarre-van de Waal, Henriette A.; & Gooren, Louis J. G. (2008). The treatment

of adolescent transsexuals: Changing insights. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5 (8), 1892–1897. Colapinto, John. (2000). As nature made him . New York: HarperCollins. Common Sense Media. (2015). Boys, girls, and media messages . Retrieved September 5, 2015, from https://www.

commonsensemedia.org/blog/boys-girls-and-media-messages# Crouter, Ann C.; Manke, Beth A.; & McHale, Susan M. (1995). The family context of gender intensifi cation

in early adolescence. Child Development, 66 , 317–329. Crouter, Ann C.; Whiteman, Shawn D.; McHale, Susan M.; & Osgood, D. Wayne. (2007). Development of

gender attitude traditionality across middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 78 (3), 911–926.

Developing Gender Identity 163

Davis, Shannon N.; & Wills, Jeremiah B. (2010). Adolescent gender ideology socialization: Direct and moderat- ing effects of fathers’ beliefs. Sociological Spectrum, 30 (5), 580–604.

Diamond, Lisa M.; Pardo, Seth T.; & Butterworth, Molly R. (2011). Transgender experience and identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 629–648). New York: Springer.

Dickerman, Charles; Christensen, Jeff; & Kerl-McClain, Stella Beatríz. (2008). Big breasts and bad guys: Depic- tions of gender and race in video games. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 3 (1), 20–29.

Docter, Richard F.; & Prince, Virginia. (1997). Transvestism: A survey of 1032 cross-dressers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26 , 589–605.

Dreger, Alice. (2009). Gender identity disorder in childhood: Inconclusive advice to parents. Hastings Center Report, 39 (1), 26–29.

Drummond, Kelley D.; Peterson-Badali, Michele; Bradley, Susan J.; & Zucker, Kenneth. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44 (1), 34–45.

Easterbrook, Gregg. (1996). It’s unreal: How phony realism in fi lm and literature is corrupting and confusing the American mind. Washington Monthly, 28 (10), 41–43.

Egan, Susan K.; & Perry, David G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37 , 451–463.

Eggermont, Steven; Beullens, Kathleen; & van den Bulck, Jan. (2005). Television viewing and adolescent females’ body dissatisfaction: The mediating role of opposite sex expectations. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 30 , 343–357.

Eliot, Lise. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain . Boston: Houghton Miffl in Harcourt. Endendijk, Joyce J.; Groeneveld, Marleen G.; van der Pol, Lotte D.; van Berkel, Sheila R.; Hallers-Haalboom,

Elizabeth T.; Mesman, Judi; . . . Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J. (2014). Boys don’t play with dolls: Moth- ers’ and fathers’ gender talk during picture book reading. Parenting: Science and Practice, 14 (3–4), 141–161.

Erickson-Schroth, Laura. (2013). Update on the biology of transgender identity. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 17 (2), 150–174.

Eun, Ki-Soo; & Kim, Eun-Young. (2006). The transformation of gender role within the families in Korean television commercials from 1985 to 2005 . Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved October 24, 2015, from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_ research_citation/1/0/5/4/6/p105468_index.html?phpsessid=hs7pe3n05f8id4q6h6349sio60

Fagot, Beverly I.; & Leinbach, Mary D. (1989). The young child’s gender schema: Environmental input, internal organization. Child Development, 60 , 663–672.

Fagot, Beverly I.; & Leinbach, Mary D. (1994). Gender-role development in young children. In M. R. Stevenson (Ed.), Gender roles through the life span: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 3–24). Muncie, IN: Ball State University.

Fiese, Barbara H.; & Skillman, Gemma. (2000). Gender differences in family stories: Moderating infl uence of parent gender role and child gender. Sex Roles, 43 , 267–283.

Friedman, Carly Kay; Leaper, Campbell; & Bigler, Rebecca S. (2007). Do mothers’ gender-related attitudes or comments predict young children’s gender beliefs? Parenting: Science & Practice, 7 (4), 357–366.

Frieze, Irene Hanson; Ferligoj, Anuška; Kogovešek, Tina; Rener, Tanja; Horvat, Jasna; & Šarlija, Nataša. (2003). Gender-role attitudes in university students in the United States, Slovenia, and Croatia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27 , 256–261.

Furnham, Adrian; & Mak, Twiggy. (1999). Sex-role stereotyping in television commercials: A review and com- parison of fourteen studies done on fi ve continents over 25 years. Sex Roles, 41 , 413–438.

Furnham, Adrian; Pallangyo, Akunda E.; & Gunter, Barrie. (2001). Gender-role stereotyping in Zimbabwean television advertisements. South African Journal of Psychology, 31 , 21–29.

Furnham, Adrian; & Saar, Alexandra. (2005). Gender-role stereotyping in adult and children’s television adver- tisements: A two-study comparison between Great Britain and Poland. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 30 , 73–90.

Ganahl, Dennis J.; Prinsen, Thomas J.; & Netzley, Sara Baker. (2003). A content analysis of prime time com- mercials: A contextual framework of gender representation. Sex Roles, 49 , 545–551.

Gerbner, George; Gross, Larry; Morgan, Michael; & Signorielli, Nancy. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

164 Developing Gender Identity

Glascock, Jack. (2001). Gender roles on prime-time network television: Demographics and behaviors. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45 , 656–669.

Goble, Priscilla; Martin, Carol Lynn; Hanish, Laura D.; & Fabes, Richard A. (2012). Children’s gender-typed activity choices across preschool social contexts. Sex Roles, 67 (7/8), 435–451.

Goldberg, Abbie E.; Kashy, Deborah A.; & Smith, JuliAnna Z. (2012). Gender-typed play behavior in early childhood: Adopted children with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles, 67 (9/10), 503–515.

Götz, Maya. (2009). Gender representation in children’s television worldwide: A comparative analysis of 24 countries . Presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Retrieved September 5, 2015, from http://www.prixjeunesse.de/childrens_tv_worldwide/studies/CTV_WW_article_goetz_et_ al_2008.pdf

Green, Richard. (1987). The “sissy boy syndrome” and the development of homosexuality . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Greven, David. (2002). Dude, where’s my gender? Contemporary teen comedies and new forms of American masculinity. Cineaste, 27 (3), 14–22.

Halim, May Ling; Ruble, Diane N.; & Amodio, David M. (2011). From pink frilly dresses to ‘one of the boys’: A social-cognitive analysis of gender identity development and gender bias. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5 (11), 933–949.

Halim, May Ling; Ruble, Diane; Tamis-LeMonda, Catherine; & Shrout, Patrick E. (2013). Rigidity in gender- typed behaviors in early childhood: A longitudinal study of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 84 (4), 1269–1284.

Harris, Judith Rich. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do . New York: Free Press. Hentges, Beth A.; Bartsch, Robert A.; & Meier, Jo A. (2007). Gender representation in commercials as a func-

tion of target audience age. Communication Research Reports, 24 (1), 55–62. Hentges, Beth; & Case, Kim. (2013). Representations on Disney channel, Cartoon Network, and Nickelodeon

broadcasts in the United States. Journal of Children & Media, 7 (3), 319–333. Hill, Shirley A. (2002). Teaching and doing gender in African American families. Sex Roles, 47 , 493–506. Hines, Melissa; Brook, Charles; & Conway, Gerard S. (2004). Androgen and psychosexual development: Core

gender identity, sexual orientation, and recalled childhood gender role behavior in women and men with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). Journal of Sex Research, 41, 75–81.

Hines, Melissa; Golombok, Susan; Rust, John; Johnston, Katie J.; & Golding, Jean. (2002). Testosterone during pregnancy and gender role behavior of preschool children: A longitudinal, population study. Child Develop- ment, 73 , 1678–1689.

Horn, Stacey S. (2007). Adolescents’ acceptance of same-sex peers based on sexual orientation and gender expres- sion. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 36 (3), 363–371.

Hudak, Mary A. (1993). Gender schema theory revisited: Men’s stereotypes of American women. Sex Roles, 28 , 279–293.

Iervolino, Alessandra C.; Hines, Melissa; Golombok, Susan E.; Rust, John; & Plomin, Robert. (2005). Genetic and environmental infl uences on sex-typed behavior during the preschool years. Child Development, 76 , 826–840.

Ivory, James D. (2006). Still a man’s game: Gender representation in online reviews of video games. Mass Com- munication and Society, 9 , 103–114.

Jackson, Dorothy W.; & Tein, Jenn-Yunn. (1998). Adolescents’ conceptualization of adult roles: Relationships with age, gender, work goal, and maternal employment. Sex Roles, 38 , 987–1008.

Johnson, Fern L.; & Young, Karen. (2002). Gendered voices in children’s television advertising. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19 , 461–480.

Jones, Constance; Peskin, Harvey; & Livson, Norm. (2011). Men’s and women’s change and individual differ- ences in change in femininity from age 33 to 85: Results from the intergenerational studies. Journal of Adult Development, 18 (4), 155–163.

Kahlenberg, Susan; & Hein, Michelle. (2010). Progression on Nickelodeon? Gender-role stereotypes in toy commercials. Sex Roles, 62 (11/12), 830–847.

Kalmijn, Matthijs. (2005). Attitude alignment in marriage and cohabitation: The case of sex-role attitudes. Personal Relationships, 12 , 521–535.

Kane, Emily W. (2006). “No way my boys are going to be like that!”: Parents’ responses to children’s gender nonconformity. Gender and Society, 20, 149–176.

Developing Gender Identity 165

Karniol, Rachel. (2009). Israeli kindergarten children’s gender constancy for others’ counter-stereotypic toy play and appearance: The role of sibling gender and relative age. Infant & Child Development, 18 (1), 73–94.

Katz, Phyllis A.; & Ksansnak, Keith R. (1994). Developmental aspects of gender role fl exibility and traditionality in middle childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30 , 272–282.

Kim, Kwangok; & Lowry, Dennis. (2005). Television commercials as a lagging social indicator: Gender role stereotypes in Korean television advertising. Sex Roles, 53 , 901–910.

Knafo, Ariel; Iervolino, Alessandra C.; & Plomin, Robert. (2005). Masculine girls and feminine boys: Genetic and environmental contributions to atypical gender development in early childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 , 400–412.

Knafo, Ariel; & Schwartz, Shalom H. (2009). Accounting for parent-child value congruence: Theoretical con- siderations and empirical evidence. In U. Schönpfl ug (Ed.), Cultural transmission: Psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects (pp. 240–268). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In Elea- nor E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 52–173). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kosciw, Joseph G.; Greytak, Emily A.; Palmer, Neal A.; & Boesen, Madelyn J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools . New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/sites/default/ fi les/2013%20National%20School%20Climate%20Survey%20Full%20Report_0.pdf

Kulik, Liat. (2002). Like-sex versus opposite-sex effects in transmission of gender role ideology from parents to adolescents in Israel. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31 , 451–457.

Lamb, Lindsay M.; Bigler, Rebecca S.; Liben, Lynn S.; & Green, Vanessa A. (2009). Teaching children to con- front peers’ sexist remarks: Implications for theories of gender development and educational practice. Sex Roles, 61 (5/6), 361–382.

Lapierre, Matthew A.; Taylor Piotrowski, Jessica; & Linebarger, Deborah L. (2012). Background television in the homes of US children. Pediatrics, 130 (5), 839–846.

Larson, Mary Strom. (2001). Interactions, activities and gender in children’s television commercials: A content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45 , 41–56.

Larson, Mary Strom. (2003). Gender, race, and aggression in television commercials that feature children. Sex Roles, 48 , 67–75.

Lauzen, Martha; & Deiss, Douglas. (2009). Breaking the fourth wall and sex role stereotypes: An examination of the 2006–2007 prime-time season. Sex Roles, 60 (5/6), 379–386.

Lauzen, Martha M.; & Dozier, David M. (2005). Maintaining the double standard: Portrayals of age and gender in popular fi lms. Sex Roles, 52 , 437-446.

Lauzen, Martha M.; Dozier, David M.; & Horan, Nora. (2008). Constructing gender stereotypes through social roles in prime-time television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52 (2), 200–214.

Leaper, Campbell. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1: Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leaper, Campbell; Anderson, Kristin J.; & Sanders, Paul. (1998). Moderators of gender effects on parents’ talk to their children: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34 , 3–27.

Leavell, Ashley; Tamis-LeMonda, Catherine; Ruble, Diane; Zosuls, Kristina; & Cabrera, Natasha. (2012). Afri- can American, White and Latino fathers’ activities with their sons and daughters in early childhood. Sex Roles, 66 (1/2), 53–65.

Leszczynski, Jennifer Pickard; & Strough, JoNell. (2008). The contextual specifi city of masculinity and feminin- ity in early adolescence. Social Development, 17 (3), 719–736.

Levy, Gary D. (1989). Relations among aspects of children’s social environments, gender schematization, gender role knowledge, and fl exibility. Sex Roles, 21 , 803–823.

Levy, Gary D. (1999). Gender-typed and non-gender-typed category awareness in toddlers. Sex Roles, 41 , 851–874.

Levy, Gary D.; & Fivush, Robyn. (1993). Scripts and gender: A new approach for examining gender-role devel- opment. Developmental Review, 13 , 126–146.

Lewin-Jones, Jenny; & Mitra, Barbara. (2009). Gender roles in television commercials and primary school children in the UK. Journal of Children & Media, 3 (1), 35–50.

Liben, Lynn S.; & Bigler, Rebecca S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67 , vii–147.

166 Developing Gender Identity

Lippa, Richard. (2008). The relation between childhood gender nonconformity and adult masculinity-femininity and anxiety in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Sex Roles, 59 (9/10), 684–693.

Lobel, Thalma E.; Nov-Krispin, Nohar; Schiller, Daniela; Lobel, Orly; & Feldman, Amit. (2004). Gender dis- criminatory behavior during adolescence and young adulthood: A developmental analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33 , 535–546.

MacCallum, Fiona; & Golombok, Susan. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: A follow- up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 , 1407–1419.

Maccoby, Eleanor E. (2002). Gender and group process: A developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 , 54–58.

Maher, Jill K.; & Childs, Nancy M. (2003). A longitudinal content analysis of gender roles in children’s televi- sion advertisements: A 27 year review. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 25 , 71–81.

Mandara, Jelani; Murray, Carolyn B.; & Joyner, Toya N. (2005). The impact of fathers’ absence on African American adolescents’ gender role development. Sex Roles, 53 (3/4), 207–220.

Marcel, Arik V.; Eftim, Sorina E.; Sonenstein, Freya L.; & Pleck, Joseph H. (2011). Associations of family and peer experiences with masculinity attitude trajectories at the individual and group level in adolescent and young adult males. Men & Masculinities, 14 (5), 565–587.

Marshall, Simon J.; Gorely, Trish; & Biddle, Stuart J. H. (2006). A descriptive epidemiology of screen-based media use in youth: A review and critique. Journal of Adolescence, 29 , 333–349.

Martin, Carol; & Dinella, Lisa. (2012). Congruence between gender stereotypes and activity preference in self- identifi ed tomboys and non-tomboys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41 (3), 599–610.

Martin, Carol Lynn. (1995). Stereotypes about children with traditional and nontraditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 33 , 727–751.

Martin, Carol Lynn; & Fabes, Richard A. (2001). The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 37 , 431–446.

Martin, Carol Lynn; & Little, Jane K. (1990). The relation of gender understanding to children’s sex-typed preferences and gender stereotypes. Child Development, 61 , 1427–1439.

Martin, Carol Lynn; Ruble, Diane N.; & Szkrybalo, Joel. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender develop- ment. Psychological Bulletin, 128 , 903–933.

Martin, Carol Lynn; Wood, Carolyn H.; & Little, Jane K. (1990). The development of gender stereotype com- ponents. Child Development, 61 , 1891–1904.

Martínez, Esther; Nicolás, M. Ángel; & Salas, Álvaro. (2013). Gender representation in advertising of toys in the Christmas period (2009–12). Comunicar, 21 (41), 187–194.

Martins, Nicole; & Harrison, Kristen. (2012). Racial and gender differences in the relationship between chil- dren’s television use and self-esteem: A longitudinal panel study. Communication Research, 39 (3), 338–357.

McDermott, Ryon C.; & Schwartz, Jonathan P. (2013). Toward a better understanding of emerging adult men’s gender role journeys: Differences in age, education, race, relationship status, and sexual orientation. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14 (2), 202–210.

McHale, Susan M.; Crouter, Ann C.; & Tucker, Corinna J. (1999). Family context and gender role socialization in middle childhood: Comparing girls to boys. Child Development, 70 , 990–1004.

McHale, Susan M.; Crouter, Ann C.; & Whiteman, Shawn D. (2003). The family contexts of gender develop- ment during childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 12 , 125–148.

McHale, Susan M.; Kim, Ji-Yeon; Whiteman, Shawn; & Crouter, Ann C. (2004). Links between sex-typed time use in middle childhood and gender development in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 40 , 868–881.

McHale, Susan M.; Updegraff, Kimberly A.; Helms-Erikson, Heather; & Crouter, Ann C. (2001). Sibling infl u- ences on gender development in middle childhood and early adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 37 , 115–125.

McHale, Susan M.; Updegraff, Kimberly A.; Shanahan, Lilly; Crouter, Ann C.; & Killoren, Sarah E. (2005). Siblings’ differential treatment in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 , 1259–1274.

Molo, Mariateresa; Rizzi, Laura; Cantafi o, Pietro; Cappai, Elena; Vighetti, Sergio; & Castelli, Lorys (2006). Characteristics of brain activity in patients with gender identity disorder. Journal of Sex Research, 43 (1), 22.

Moon, Michelle; & Hoffman, Charles D. (2008). Mothers’ and fathers’ differential expectancies and behaviors: Parent x child gender effects. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 169 (3), 261–280.

Developing Gender Identity 167

Morgan, Betsy Levonian. (1998). A three generational study of tomboy behavior. Sex Roles, 39 , 787–800. Murad, Mohammad Hassan; Elamin, Mohamed B.; Garcia, Magaly Zumaeta; Mullan, Rebecca J.; Murad,

Ayman; Erwin, Patricia J.; & Montori, Victor M. (2010). Hormonal therapy and sex reassignment: A system- atic review and meta-analysis of quality of life and psychosocial outcomes. Clinical Endocrinology, 72 (2), 214–231.

Murphy, Sheila T. (1998). The impact of factual versus fi ctional media portrayals on cultural stereotypes. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 560 , 165–178.

Nassif, Atif; & Gunter, Barrie. (2008). Gender representation in television advertisements in Britain and Saudi Arabia. Sex Roles, 58 (11/12), 752–760.

Near, Christopher. (2013). Selling gender: Associations of box art representation of female characters with sales for teen- and mature-rated video games. Sex Roles, 68 (3/4), 252–269.

Neto, Félix; & Silva, M. Carolina. (2009). Changing patterns of gender portrayals in Portuguese television advertisements. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39 (5), 1214–1228.

Newman, Leonard S.; Cooper, Joel; & Ruble, Diane N. (1995). The interactive effects of knowledge and con- stancy on gender-stereotyped attitudes. (Gender and Computers, part 2). Sex Roles, 33 , 325–351.

Nippold, Marilyn A.; Duthie, Jill K.; & Larsen, Jennifer. (2005). Literacy as a leisure activity: Free-time prefer- ences of older children and young adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36 , 93–102.

O’Brien, Marion; Peyton, Vicki; Mistry, Rashmita; Hruda, Ludmila; Jacobs, Anne; Caldera, Yvonne; Roy, Caro- lyn. (2000). Gender-role cognition in three-year-old boys and girls. Sex Roles, 42 , 1007–1025.

Paechter, Carier; & Clark, Sheryl. (2007). Who are tomboys and how do we recognise them? Women’s Studies International Forum, 30 (4), 342–354.

Paek, Hye-Jin; Nelson, Michelle R.; & Vilela, Alexandra M. (2011). Examination of gender-role portrayals in television advertising across seven countries. Sex Roles, 64 , 192–207.

Peters, John F. (1994). Gender socialization of adolescents in the home: Research and discussion. Adolescence, 29 , 913–934.

Pitt, Richard N.; & Borland, Elizabeth. (2008). Bachelorhood and men’s attitudes about gender roles. Journal of Men’s Studies, 16 (2), 140–158.

Pnina, Ron. (2009). The differences in role division between partners in long-term marriages and their well- being. Journal of Family Social Work, 12 (1), 44–55.

Pollack, William. (1998). Real boys . New York: Holt. Poulin-Dubois, Diane; Serbin, Lisa A.; Eichstedt, Julie A.; Sen, Maya G.; & Beissel, Clara F. (2002). Men don’t

put on make-up: Toddlers’ knowledge of the gender stereotyping of household activities. Social Development, 11 , 166–181.

Powlishta, Kimberly K.; Serbin, Lisa A.; & Moller, Lora C. (1993). The stability of individual differences in gender typing: Implications for understanding gender segregation. Sex Roles, 29 , 723–744.

Raag, Tarja; & Rackliff, Christine L. (1998). Preschoolers’ awareness of social expectations of gender: Relation- ships to toy choices. Sex Roles, 38 , 685–700.

Raffaelli, Marcela; & Ontai, Lenna L. (2004). Gender socialization in Latino/a families: Results from two ret- rospective studies. Sex Roles, 50 , 287–299.

Ramsey-Rennels, Jennifer L.; & Langlois, Judith H. (2006). Infants’ differential processing of female and male faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 , 59–62.

Riggio, Heidi R.; & Desrochers, Stephan. (2005). The infl uence of maternal employment on the work and fam- ily expectations of offspring. In D. F. Halpern & S. Elaine Murphy (Eds.), From work-family balance to work- family interaction: Changing the metaphor (pp. 177–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosin, Hanna. (2008). A boy’s life. The Atlantic, 302 (4), 56–71. Ruble, Diane N.; Lurye, Leah E.; & Zosuls, Kristina M. (2007). Pink Frilly Dresses (PFD) and early gender

identity. Princeton Report on Knowledge, 2 (2). Retrieved September 5, 2015, from http://www.princeton.edu/ prok/issues/2–2/pink_frilly.xml

Ruble, Diane N.; & Martin, Carol Lynn. (1998). Gender development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 933–1016). New York: Wiley.

Ruble, Diane N.; Martin, Carol Lynn; & Berenbaum, Sheri A. (2006). Gender development. In N. Eisen- berg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3 (pp. 858–932). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ruble, Diane N.; Taylor, Lisa J.; Cyphers, Lisa; Greulich, Faith K.; Lurye, Leah; & Shrout, Patrick E. (2007). The role of gender constancy in early gender development. Child Development, 78 (4), 1121–1136.

168 Developing Gender Identity

Sabattini, Laura; & Leaper, Campbell. (2004). The relation between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles and their division of labor in the home: Young adults’ retrospective reports. Sex Roles, 50 , 27–225.

Sandnabba, N. Kenneth; & Ahlberg, Christian. (1999). Parents’ attitudes and expectations about children’s cross-gender behavior. Sex Roles, 40 , 249–264.

Scharrer, Erica. (2001). Tough guys: The portrayal of hypermasculinity and aggression in televised police dramas. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45 , 615–634.

Serbin, Lisa A.; Poulin-Dubois, Diane; Colburne, Karen A.; Sen, Maya G.; & Eichstedt, Julie A. (2001). Gender stereotyping in infancy: Visual preferences for and knowledge of gender-stereotyped toys in the second year. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25 , 7–15.

Serbin, Lisa A.; Poulin-Dubois, Diane; & Eichstedt, Julie A. (2002). Infants’ response to gender-inconsistent events. Infancy, 3 , 531–542.

Shellenbarger, Sue. (2006). Boys mow lawns, girls wash dishes. Wall Street Journal Online . Retrieved January 7, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB116545148018742855

Showfety, Sarah. (2008). High heels and pink? No way. Psychology Today, 41 (5), 43–44. Sidanius, Jim; & Pena, Yesilernis. (2003). The gendered nature of family structure and group-based anti-

egalitarianism: A cross-national study. Journal of Social Psychology, 143 , 243–251. Signorella, Margaret L.; Bigler, Rebecca L.; & Liben, Lynn S. (1993). Developmental differences in children’s

gender schemata about others: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 13 , 147–183. Signorielli, Nancy. (1998). A content analysis: Refl ections of girls in the media: Television and the perpetuation of

gender-role stereotypes . (Report No. ED444213). Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Oakland, CA: Children Now. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Signorielli, Nancy. (2004). Aging on television: Messages relating to gender, race, and occupation in prime time. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48 , 279–301.

Slavkin, Michael; & Stright, Anne Dopkins. (2000). Gender role differences in college students from one- and two-parent families. Sex Roles, 42 , 23–37.

Smith, Stacy L.; Choueiti, Marc; Scofi eld, Elizabeth; & Pieper, Katherine. (2013). Gender inequality in 500 popu- lar fi lms: Examining on-screen portrayals and behind-the-scenes employment patterns in motion pictures released between 2007–2012 . Anneberg School for Communication & Journalism. Retrieved September 1, 2015, from http://annenberg.usc.edu/pages/~/media/MDSCI/Gender_Inequality_in_500_Popular_Films_-_ Smith_2013.ashx

Smith, Tara E.; & Leaper, Campbell. (2006). Self-perceived gender typicality and the peer context during ado- lescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16 (1), 91–103.

Splete, Heidi. (2005). GID patients need to be told of realities. Clinical Psychiatry News, 33 (5), 50. Stennes, Leif M.; Burch, Melissa M.; Sen, Maya G.; & Bauer, Patricia J. (2005). A longitudinal study of gendered

vocabulary and communicative action in young children. Developmental Psychology, 41 , 75–88. Sutfi n, Erin; Fulcher, Megan; Bowles, Ryan; & Patterson, Charlotte. (2008). How lesbian and heterosexual

parents convey attitudes about gender to their children: The role of gendered environments. Sex Roles, 58 (7/8), 501–513.

Sweeting, Helen; Bhaskar, Abita; Benzeval, Michaela; Popham, Frank; & Hunt, Kate. (2014). Changing gender roles and attitudes and their implications for well-being around the new millennium. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49 (5), 791–809.

Tavris, Carol; & Wade, Carole. (1984). The longest war: Sex differences in perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Har- court Brace Jovanovich.

Tennenbaum, Harriet R.; & Leaper, Campbell. (2002). Are parents’ gender schemas related to their children’s gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 38 , 615–630.

Thomas, Rachel; & Blakemore, Judith. (2013). Adults’ attitudes about gender nonconformity in childhood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42 (3), 399–412.

Trautner, Hanns M.; Ruble, Diane N.; Cyphers, Lisa; Kirsten, Barbara; Behrendt, Regina; & Hartmann, Petra. (2005). Rigidity and fl exibility of gender stereotypes in childhood: Developmental or differential? Infant and Child Development, 14 , 365–381.

Uray, Nimet; & Burnaz, Sebnem. (2003). An analysis of the portrayal of gender roles in Turkish television advertisements. Sex Roles, 48 , 77–87.

Veale, Jaimie F.; Clarke, David E.; & Lomax, Terri C. (2010). Biological and psychosocial correlates of adult gender-variant identities: A review. Personality & Individual Differences, 48 (4), 357–366.

Developing Gender Identity 169

Warin, Jo. (2000). The attainment of self-consistency through gender in young children. Sex Roles, 42 , 209–232.

Welch-Ross, Melissa K.; & Schmidt, Constance R. (1996). Gender-schema development and children’s con- structive story memory: Evidence or a developmental model. Child Development, 67 , 820–835.

Williams, Dmitri. (2003). The video game lightning rod: Constructions of a new media technology, 1970–2000. Information, Communication, and Society, 6 , 523–550.

Witt, Susan D. (1997). Parental infl uence on children’s socialization to gender roles. Adolescence, 32 , 253–259. Witt, Susan D. (2000). The infl uence of television on children’s gender role socialization. Childhood Education,

76 , 322–324. Wong, Wang; Pasterski, Vickie; Hindmarsh, Peter; Geffner, Mitchell; & Hines, Melissa. (2013). Are there paren-

tal socialization effects on the sex-typed behavior of individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42 (3), 381–391.

Yoder, Janice D.; Christopher, Jessica; & Holmes, Jeffrey D. (2008). Are television commercials still achievement scripts for women? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32 (3), 303–311.

Young, Robert; & Sweeting, Helen. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships, psychological well-being, and gender-atypical behavior: A gender diagnosticity approach. Sex Roles, 50, 525–537.

Ziegler, Albert; & Stoeger, Heidrun. (2008). Effects of role models from fi lms on short-term ratings of intent, interest, and self-assessment of ability by high school youth: A study of gender-stereotyped academic subjects. Psychological Reports, 102 (2), 509–531.

Zosuls, Kristina; Miller, Cindy; Ruble, Diane; Martin, Carol; & Fabes, Richard. (2011). Gender development research in Sex Roles : Historical trends and future directions. Sex Roles, 64 (11/12), 826–842.

Zosuls, Kristina M.; Ruble, Diane N.; Tamis-LeMonda, Catherine S.; Shrout, Patrick E.; Bomstein, Marc H.; & Greulich, Faith K. (2009). The acquisition of gender labels in infancy: Implications for gender-typed play. Developmental Psychology, 45 (3), 688–701.

Zucker, Kenneth J. (2002). A factual correction to Bartlett, Vasey, and Bukowski’s (2000) “Is gender identity disorder in children a mental disorder?” Sex Roles, 46 , 263–264.

Zucker, Kenneth J.; Bradley, Susan J.; & Sanikhani, Mohammad. (1997). Sex differences in referral rates of children with gender identity disorder: Some hypotheses. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 217–227.

Zucker, Kenneth J.; Wilson-Smith, Debra N.; Kurita, Janice A.; & Stern, Anita. (1995). Children’s appraisals of sex-typed behavior in their peers. Sex Roles, 33 , 703–725.

7 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Headline : “ Is the Female of the Species Really More Intelligent Than the Male?” The Telegraph , July 17, 2012

Questions of whether men or women are smarter go back much farther than the history of intelligence testing, and research has furnished evidence supporting both answers. The latest answer—that women are smarter—comes from research by James Flynn, whose fi nd- ings concerning intelligence have stirred controversy over the past 25 years. Flynn contends that human intelligence has increased over the past century both for women and men, a phenomenon called the Flynn Effect (Hanlon, 2012). However, Flynn’s research (2012) indicates that women’s IQs have increased more rapidly. His fi ndings received widespread publicity, with interpretations that women are now smarter than men for the fi rst time since IQ testing began. Such headlines were destined to provoke even more controversy over IQ testing than has occurred in past years.

Flynn (in Kaufman, 2012) was quick to object to the sensationalistic headlines, saying that the differences that he found are too small to indicate that women are smarter. Flynn pointed out that the measurement of IQ that he used, although classifi ed as a measure of IQ, tapped into a specifi c type of logic and reasoning. He stood by his assertion that women score as well as men on this test in wealthy countries in which women now have full access to edu- cation. Some media reports failed to include these important details; these stories reported that women are now smarter than men. These fi ndings and Flynn’s research rekindled the controversy over gender and intelligence, which provokes strong feelings but also highlights important questions.

To what extent do gender differences explain intelligence and cognitive abilities? Are such contrasts suffi ciently large to explain the distribution of men and women into different areas of study and occupations, or do these fi ndings, as Flynn contended, represent insignifi cant distinctions in how women and men think? Do differences apply only to specifi c cognitive abilities or to overall intelligence?

Cognitive Abilities

Other than defi ning intelligence as “how smart a person is” (a trivial and circular defi nition), an acceptable defi nition of this concept has been diffi cult to formulate. Indeed, heated debate over the nature of intelligence has occurred throughout the history of intelligence testing. The prominence of this concern highlights the importance of the issue; understanding intel- ligence and the abilities that contribute to intelligence is a basic question for understanding humans.

Psychologists have been concerned with the concept of intelligence since the 1890s (Schultz & Schultz, 2012). However, the current view of intelligence was most infl uenced

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 171

by the creation of the intelligence test in 1905. This test, formulated by Alfred Binet, Vic- tor Henri, and Théodore Simon, measured a variety of mental abilities related to school performance, including memory, attention, comprehension, vocabulary, and imagination. A version of this test—the Stanford-Binet—appeared in the United States in 1916, and the intelligence testing movement became an important part of psychology, especially in the United States.

The prevailing view of intelligence during the 19th and early 20th centuries was that women’s intellect was inferior to men’s (Lewin, 1984; Shields, 1975). Lewis Terman, who adapted the Binet-Simon test into the Stanford-Binet, did not believe in the intellectual inferiority of women and had no trouble accepting the results of this test, which revealed no average differences between the intelligence of men and that of women. Indeed, the scores on the early versions of the Stanford-Binet showed that women scored slightly higher than men, but after some minor adjustment of items, the average scores for women and girls were equal to those of men and boys (Terman & Merrill, 1937).

Although IQ test scores are equal, the gender prejudice of the 19th century has lasted into the 21st century: Both women and men judge women’s intelligence as lower than men’s (Furnham, Callahan, & Akande, 2004). Such contrasts occur when students estimate their own intelligence, when college students estimate their parents’ intelligence, and when parents judge their children’s intelligence (Furnham, Reeves, & Budhani, 2002). This difference crops up around the world, including Europe, the United States, Asia, the Middle East, and in some countries in Africa (von Stumm, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2009). South Africa was an exception; both Whites (Furnham et al., 2004) and Blacks (Furnham, Ndlovu, & Mkhize, 2009) showed few gender differences or higher estimates of men’s than women’s intelligence.

With the development of the intelligence testing movement came increased attention to the various abilities included within these tests. In the Stanford-Binet, most test items could be classifi ed as verbal; that is, most questions require the understanding and use of language. Psychologist David Wechsler created an alternative intelligence test that divided abilities into the categories of verbal and performance skills. The verbal subtests require those being tested to provide verbal answers by performing certain tasks: supplying factual knowledge (infor- mation), defi ning vocabulary items (vocabulary), performing basic arithmetic computation (arithmetic), repeating a series of digits (digit span), understanding similarities between objects (similarities), and properly interpreting social conventions (comprehension).

The performance subtests of Wechsler’s test require no verbal responses, but instead people respond by performing some action. The performance subtests include arranging pictures into a sensible story (picture arrangement), duplicating designs with blocks (block design), completing pictures that have some missing part (picture completion), assembling cut-up fi gures of common objects (object assembly), and learning and rapidly applying digit-symbol codes (digit symbols) (Gregory, 1987). Figure 7.1 shows samples of the types of items on the Wechsler tests.

Unlike the Stanford-Binet, Wechsler’s test showed differences between the scores of men and women; women scored higher on the verbal subtests, and men scored higher on the performance subtests. Although the combined scores on the Wechsler tests show no gen- der differences, the subtest scores always have. These differences parallel the bias in men’s estimates of their own intelligence, which stem from men’s estimation of their spatial and mathematical abilities as higher than women’s (Rammstedt & Rammsayer, 2002). This bias applies more strongly to men who rated themselves as more masculine; these men rated their spatial and mathematical reasoning higher than women’s abilities. But the same men also rated themselves lower in musical ability than women. These results fall in line with stereo- types of abilities, as do results that indicate men judged themselves higher in intellectual ability but lower in social and emotional intelligence than women (Petrides, Furnham, &

172 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Martin, 2004; von Stumm et al., 2009). Thus, Wechsler subtests and self-estimates conform to gender stereotypes of abilities.

Similarly, Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin’s (1974) review of gender differences in intellectual performance found differences on verbal, mathematical, and spatial tasks that were consistent with stereotypes. More recent research, however, has revealed that the pat- terns of gender differences in these cognitive abilities are smaller yet more complex than the early reviews suggested.

Part of the complexity comes from the tests used to assess these various cognitive abilities. The term abilities is somewhat inaccurate, because the assessments have been tests of per- formance or achievement, such as the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT, which was formerly called the Scholastic Aptitude Test), a test used for college admissions. Such tests certainly do not measure innate abilities, so fi ndings of gender differences do not necessarily mean that women and men are inherently different in what these tests measure. Rather, variations represent different levels of current performance, shaped by experience and education as well as ability. Generalizations of results from these tests to conclusions of innate ability are

Figure 7.1 Sample Test Items Similar to Items on Wechsler’s Tests of Intelligence

Source: From World of Psychology by Sam Wood and Ellen Green Wood, 1st ed., ©1993. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., New York, New York.

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 173

incorrect. Differences in performance might come from distinct biological endowment, but could also come from social roles, parental encouragement, school courses, leisure activities, or motivation to perform well on the test.

Verbal Performance

The tasks that researchers have used to study verbal ability include not only the verbal sub- tests of the Wechsler tests but also a great variety of tests related to language, reading, and writing (see Table 7.1 ). This variation may be one reason why research on verbal performance has not yielded entirely consistent results (Sanders, Sjodin, & de Chastelaine, 2002). When taking the variety of verbal tasks into account, literature reviews (Halpern, 2012; Maccoby &

Table 7.1 Examples of Different Measures of Verbal, Quantitative, and Spatial Abilities

Verbal Quantitative Spatial

Vocalizations during infancy Pointing to a member of a set Reproducing geometric forms

Visual-motor association Estimating proportion Matching geometric shapes

Talking to mother WISC arithmetic subtest Reading maps

Verbalization in free play Digit-processing task Matching photos for orientation

Parents’ reports of speech problems Digit-symbol subtest of WAIS Distance perception

Complete sentences Math achievement Assembling puzzles

Anagram task Math reasoning Rotating shapes

Carrying out simple and complex tasks

Problem solving Reproducing patterns

Judgment of grammatical sentences Addition Disembedding fi gures

Verbal imitation Subtraction Angle matching

Verbal reproduction of story Arithmetic computation Maze performance

Reading speed Number arrangement Localization of a spatial target

Reading vocabulary Math subtests for SAT Discrimination of triangles and mirror-image reversals

Reading comprehension General Aptitude Test Battery

Errors in similes ACT Distinguishing right from left, east from west, and top from bottom

Spelling

Punctuation Rod-and-frame task

Synonyms and antonyms Matching pictures to objects

Verbal subtests from: Seguin Form Board

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Spatial subtests from:

Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability

Differential Aptitude Test

General Aptitude Test Battery

Expressive Vocabulary Inventory Piaget’s water-level task

WISC Making judgments about moving objects

WISC Block Design

Source: Adapted from The Psychology of Sex Differences by Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin, Copyright © 1974 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. All rights reserved, reprinted by permission of the publisher, Stanford University Press, sup.org.

174 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Jacklin, 1974) have come to the conclusion that girls and women have some advantages in verbal performance. These advantages include the rapidity and profi ciency with which girls acquire language compared to boys, an advantage that girls maintain throughout elementary school. The National Assessment of Educational Progress tests the achievement of a represen- tative sample of students in 4th, 8th, and 12th grades and shows an advantage in reading and writing for girls at all of these grade levels (Coley, 2001). The advantage in writing ability is large and persists throughout college (Halpern, 2012; Halpern et al., 2007).

One gender stereotype of women’s verbal behavior is not correct: Women do not talk more than men. Two studies (Leaper & Ayres, 2007; Mehl, Vazire, Ramirez-Esparza, Statcher, & Pennebaker, 2007) have evaluated speaking behavior in women and men and found no signifi cant difference in the number of words uttered each day.

Meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results from many studies to estimate the size of certain effects, and this technique offers advantages over the literature review approach. Janet Hyde has completed several meta-analyses, one including the studies from Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) literature review (Hyde, 1981) and a later one examin- ing additional studies (Hyde & Linn, 1988). The results of these meta-analyses revealed gender-related differences in verbal performance are small; about 1% of the difference in verbal ability relates to gender, leaving the other 99% related to other factors. A later analysis of many meta-analyses (Hyde, 2005a) confi rmed that, despite the stereotype, verbal abilities of women and men are quite similar. The differences exist in writing—women write more quickly and fl uently—and in language development—girls develop language earlier than boys, but boys catch up (Wallentin, 2009).

Mathematical and Quantitative Performance

Research on mathematical and quantitative performance presents a complex picture in which changes during adolescence, patterns of course selection, and attitudes toward math make the assessment of underlying ability impossible. Most studies with children younger than age 13 show either no gender differences or certain advantages for girls in mathematical performance, defi ned as profi ciency in arithmetic computation (Fennema, 1980; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990). By age 13, gender differences favoring boys begin to appear in many of the assessments of mathematical performance (Spelke, 2005).

Girls who excel at arithmetic computation do not become women who are poor at such tasks; the difference in performance arises from the changes in what constitutes mathemati- cal and quantitative performance. Rather than consist of arithmetic computation, the tests of quantitative ability during the middle and high school years begin to include tasks that draw on a variety of cognitive abilities, as Table 7.1 shows.

Despite the stereotype that girls and women do more poorly in mathematics than boys and men, research indicates little difference in performance (Hyde, 2005a; Leahey & Guo, 2001). For example, scores from standardized tests administered to the population of 12th- grade high school students show no gender differences (Willingham, Cole, Lewis, & Leung, 1997). However, men score higher than women the mathematics section of the SAT (SAT-M) and the quantitative test of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) (Gallagher, Levin, & Cahalan, 2002). Using the technique of meta-analysis to evaluate many studies of math- ematics performance, men’s scores were slightly higher than women’s (Hyde, 1981, 2005b). Thus, some measures of mathematics performance indicate an advantage for women, some show an advantage for men, and yet others suggest no advantage either way. These seem- ingly contradictory fi ndings are the result of different measures of quantitative performance.

Analyzing quantitative abilities into different skills and ages reveals a complex pattern related to gender (Hyde et al., 1990; Spelke, 2005). Girls and women have a small advantage

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 175

in math computation, which draws on their better abilities to rapidly retrieve information from memory (Camarata & Woodcock, 2006; Halpern, 2004). By the 10th grade, boys begin to show an advantage (Leahey & Guo, 2001), possibly because some math problems draw on spatial skills, in which boys tend to excel. By 12th grade, boys’ scores exceed girls’ scores by about 1%, which represents a very small difference. Boys’ advantage is largest for geometry, which is consistent with the view that spatial skills are important in this area. Table 7.2 summarizes the fi ndings on math performance.

A large gender difference in higher-level mathematics appeared in several studies, show- ing that, in selected groups of mathematically gifted students, males have a large advantage over females (Benbow & Stanley, 1980, 1983). In early studies, boys outnumbered girls by over 12 to 1, but those ratios have changed. Programs that recruit mathematically talented students now fi nd about twice as many boys as girls (Spelke, 2005).

As the disproportionate number of boys gifted in mathematics suggests, the variation in math- ematical performance is not uniform for women and men. Men’s performance shows more vari- ability than women’s performance (Lehre, Lehre, Laake, & Denbolt, 2009; Lubinski & Benbow, 2007). That is, men are more likely to score in the upper and lower ends of the performance distribution than women are. More men exhibit mathematical defi cits than women, but men are also more likely to be more numerous in the upper range of these abilities, as the studies of talented adolescents in the United States demonstrate. This variability, however, is not universal and fails to appear in some cultures in which girls are more common in the upper end of the distribution of math performance (Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010; Penner, 2008).

The classifi cation of students as mathematically gifted often involves a standardized test, and this type of test has been part of the controversy related to gender differences in math per- formance. Some standardized tests have consistently revealed a male advantage, including the mathematics subtests from the SAT and the Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test (PSAT), the quantitative section of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), and the Advanced Placement Program calculus exam (Spelke & Grace, 2007; Willingham et al., 1997). The gender-related differences in performance on these tests demonstrate a variety of infl uences, including the possibility that the selection of test items and test format give advantages to men that are not really related to mathematics ability (Spelke, 2005). For example, men do

Table 7.2 Gender-Related Differences in Mathematics Performance

Mathematics Skill Group Advantage

Arithmetic computation Elementary school students Girls

Math concepts Elementary school students Girls

Problem solving Middle school students No difference

SAT Mathematics subtest 13-year-old gifted students Boys

Math concepts High school students Boys

Problem solving High school students Boys

SAT Mathematics subtest College-bound students Boys

Advanced Placement Calculus test College-bound students Boys

Numerical Ability subtest of DAT Grades 8–12 No difference

Math performance Representative group of 12th-grade students No difference

Mathematics subtest of GRE College students Men

Arithmetic computation Adults in general population Women

Math performance Adults in general population No difference

176 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

better than women on multiple-choice format tests and on tests with time limits (Willingham & Cole, 1997). Both characteristics are common to the mathematics tests that show a male advantage, but these factors have no relationship to math ability.

For as long as the Educational Testing Service (ETS) has collected information on gender, the Mathematics section of the SAT has shown substantial differences, even among young women whose math grades are equal to or better than young men’s grades (Gallagher et al., 2002). Indeed, the SAT “overpredicts” men’s grades in college math classes; that is, men’s grades are not as high as the test scores predict they will be (Spelke, 2005). Likewise, the test “underpredicts” women’s college math grades; women’s grades are higher than the tests pre- dict. Indeed, women’s grades are higher than men’s grades in the same college math classes. Thus the SAT Mathematics section fails to achieve its stated purpose—to predict college grades accurately (Nankervis, 2011; Spelke & Grace, 2007).

The bias in the SAT has several implications. First, as the Educational Testing Service advises, colleges should not rely on the SAT alone for decisions about college admissions and scholarships. Indeed, a growing number of colleges and universities have gone a step further, eliminating the SAT as part of their admissions criteria (FairTest Examiner, 2006). Second, researchers should accept that they should not consider the SAT as a standard for assessing mathematics ability (Spelke & Grace, 2007). The evidence of its bias is a problem, but its failure to predict college math grades is an even more serious drawback.

Gendered Voices—Math Class is Tough

“Math class is tough,” according to Teen Talk Barbie, introduced by the Mattel Toy Com- pany in 1992. Teen Talk Barbie was the company’s second talking Barbie, but this particular phrase unleashed a furor. Many women and women’s groups protested the perpetuation of the idea that women fi nd math more diffi cult than men do; they feared that this popular toy’s proclamation would reinforce and perpetuate the stereotype that math is not for girls. Mattel soon dropped that phrase from Barbie’s repertoire (Smith & White, 2002).

What, then, are the gender differences in quantitative ability and performance? Gender differences in attitudes toward math and motivation to pursue mathematics play a role in women’s and men’s quantitative experiences. Elementary school students do not perceive math as a male domain (Heyman & Legare, 2004), but mathematically gifted middle school students (especially boys) expressed beliefs that men were more naturally talented at math than women, and so do their parents and teachers (Leedy, LaLonde, & Runk, 2003). These perceptions lead to the acceptance of math as a male domain (Cheryan, 2012; Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002). Both children and parents share this cultural perception, resulting in differential beliefs concerning boys’ and girls’ math abilities. When girls are good at math, they are more often the target of bullying than boys (although being a math “nerd” places both at risk for bullying; Boehnke, 2008).

Individuals who hold the belief that accomplishments originate from natural talent rather than from work tend to experience doubts in their abilities and loss of confi dence and moti- vation when they encounter diffi culties, and this tendency applies to girls more strongly than to boys (Dweck, 2007). This attitude may play a critical role not only in the motivation to pursue mathematics but also in other academic performance as well.

Girls’ perception that math is a male domain may lead them to believe that they are unlikely to succeed in the subject and to perceive that math is not important or valuable to them (Eccles, 1987, 2007). The combined lack of confi dence and the belief that math

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 177

is not important to their future form a powerful disincentive for girls during high school, when they have the option to choose elective math courses. Until the 1990s, girls enrolled in fewer math courses than boys, but that situation changed, and enrollment is now similar (Spelke, 2005).

Janis Jacobs and Jacquelynne Eccles (1992) proposed and validated a model for the gen- der-related factors that infl uence self-perceptions about abilities, including math ability. Figure 7.2 presents that model, and an examination of that fi gure reveals that several factors

Photo 7.1 Despite the stereotype of math as a male domain, high school girls now enroll in as many math courses as high school boys.

Figure 7.2 Path of Infl uence for Perception of Abilities

Source: From “The Impact of Mothers’ Gender-Role Stereotypic Beliefs on Mothers’ and Children’s Ability Perceptions,” by Janis E. Jacobs and Jacquelynne S. Eccles, 1992, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, p. 935. Copyright 1992 by American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission of Janis Jacobs and the American Psychological Association.

178 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Gendered Voices: The Problem with Being Good at Math Cornelia Dean, science editor for The New York Times , recounted her experience with what it’s like to be a girl in junior high school who is good at math (Dean, 2005). When Dean was in the seventh grade, she was enrolled in an experimental school for “brainiacs,” in which all the students took a mathematics aptitude test. Her results and her classmates’ reactions changed her life: “The results were posted and everyone found out I had scored several years ahead of the next brightest kid. A girl really good in math! What a freak! I resolved then and there on a career in journalism” (Dean, 2005, p. F3).

Beliefs about competence may not be the only problem in encouraging girls to pursue mathematics; some evidence (Jacobs, Davis-Kean, Bleeker, Eccles, & Malanchuk, 2005) indicates that girls may have the talent but not the interest in studying math. Indeed, a survey of children from around the world (Sanchez, Zimmerman, & Ye, 2004) revealed that high school students in the United States tend to think that mathematics is diffi cult and not all that interesting. Girls expressed these opinions more strongly than boys. In addition, girls with high profi ciency in math tend to do well in verbal performance as well (Ceci & Williams, 2010; Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009). This combination gives these girls the ability to pursue a variety of careers, not only mathematics. Thus, motivating girls to pursue math is a challenge, and parents and teachers do not pressure girls and boys equally to pursue the study of mathematics. Without these sources of social support to study math, girls choose not to do so in larger numbers than boys.

In summary, gender-related differences in mathematics performance do not exist in the general population, and the stereotype of math as a male domain is not based on perfor- mance. Among students, girls and boys do not differ in mathematics performance until high school. At this time, boys begin to show higher average levels of math performance on standardized tests and confi dence in their ability at math. These differences persist throughout adulthood. The stereotype of math as a male domain lingers, affecting girls, boys, parents, and teachers to give contrasting encouragement to girls and boys. Despite the disappearing performance differences between boys and girls in math classes and on some standardized tests, encouraging girls to pursue mathematics remains a challenge.

Spatial Performance

Variation has existed in the defi nitions of verbal ability and quantitative ability, but researchers have defi ned spatial ability in an even wider variety of ways. Table 7.1 includes some of these defi nitions. Any of these tasks represents a reasonable way to measure the concept of spatial abilities, but they vary suffi ciently to yield results that may not be consistent from study to

are important. One is biological sex, which affects children’s beliefs about their abilities. Another component is gender stereotypes and an interaction of sex with gender stereotyp- ing, such as the stereotype that math is a male domain. Research indicated that accepting this stereotype predicted college women’s changing career plans and leaving academic fi elds that require mathematics (Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau, 2004). A longitudinal analysis of career choices in young women (Eccles, 2007) showed that, consistent with the model, expectations for success and the value of taking courses mediated enrollment.

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 179

study. The variations in the defi nition of what constitutes spatial ability have not hindered many people from accepting the notion that men are better at these tasks than women.

Despite some disagreement over how to categorize spatial abilities (Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995), a four-category approach captures some of the complexity of the area. Three categories include spatial perception, mental rotation, and spatial visualization (Linn & Petersen, 1986); a fourth type of spatial task is spatiotemporal or targeting ability. Spatial perception includes the ability to identify and locate the horizontal or vertical planes in the presence of distract- ing information. Examples of measures of spatial perception are the rod-and-frame task and Piaget’s water-level task, both shown in Figure 7.3 . These tasks usually show gender-related

Figure 7.3 Spatial Tasks Favoring Men

180 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

differences, with boys and men outperforming girls and women. The magnitude of this varia- tion is small during childhood and adolescence, but fairly large for adults.

Mental rotation includes the ability to visualize objects as they would appear if rotated in space. An example of a measure of this type of ability also appears in Figure 7.3 . The gender-related difference for this spatial ability is fairly large, with boys and men scoring substantially higher than girls and women on speed and accuracy of mentally rotating objects (Hyde, 2005a; Voyer et al., 1995).

Spatial visualization refers to the ability to process spatial information so as to under- stand the relationship between objects in space, such as the ability to see a fi gure embedded in other fi gures (also shown in Figure 7.3 ), fi nd hidden fi gures in a drawing or picture, or imagine the shape produced when a folded piece of paper is cut and then unfolded. Gender distinctions do not always appear on measures of these tasks. When such differences appear, men show a small advantage.

A fourth category of spatial ability is called spatiotemporal ability (Halpern, 2012). This ability involves judgments about moving objects in space, such as predicting when a moving object will arrive at a target or aiming and throwing. This spatial ability has been less researched than the others. Some research on this ability indicated that men’s ability is higher than women’s, but other research (Barral & Debû, 2004) found that women were more accurate (but slower) than men in aiming and throwing.

An additional complication in assessing gender differences in spatial ability comes from the possibility that some tasks labeled “spatial” may include other components. For example, men performed better than women on a paper-and-pencil version of a mental rotation task, but the differences were reduced (Monahan, Harke, & Shelley, 2008) or eliminated (Parsons et al., 2004) in a computerized, virtual reality version of the mental rotation task. Gender role and expectancy infl uenced women’s performance on an embedded fi gures test; highly feminine women did better when the task was presented as an empathy test, but more masculine women did better when the same task was described as a spatial ability task (Massa, Mayer, & Bohon, 2005). Similarly, the male advantage on the rod-and-frame task disappeared when a human fi gure replaced the rod and the task was presented as a measure of empathy (Naditch, in Caplan, MacPherson, & Tobin, 1985). In this situation, women outperformed men. Altering the expectations for the task changed performance in these two studies, even though the tasks remained the same and required the same spatial abilities. Thus, what researchers defi ne as measures of spatial ability may include other components that hamper or boost women’s performance.

Several research fi ndings provide evidence against a simple conclusion for a male advantage on spatial tasks, including fi ndings that women show an advantage on some spatial tasks (Halpern, 2012; Montello, Lovelace, Golledge, & Self, 1999). Women tend to do better on tasks of perceptual speed in which people must rapidly identify matching items. Women also outperform men on tasks in which people must remember the placement of a series of objects (Levy, Frick, & Astur, 2005), especially for recently moved objects (Honda & Nihei, 2009). Examples of these tasks appear in Figure 7.4 . An additional complication comes from the fi nding that gender differences appear in some age groups but not in others, that differ- ences are subject to change with variations in testing procedure, and that gender variations in some spatial abilities seem to be decreasing (Voyer et al., 1995).

These various fi ndings raise the question: Do men really have better spatial abilities than women? The answer is not a simple yes or no. Of the many spatial abilities, men show an advantage in some, and women show an advantage in others. Men in the United States pro- duce reliably better scores than women in spatial perception, such as Piaget’s water-level task

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 181

and a large advantage in mental rotation (Halpern, 2012; Hyde, 2005a). Even that advantage is subject to change: It disappeared when researchers (Ortner & Sieverding, 2008) presented a male stereotype before participants performed a mental rotation task. Training can also decrease this difference (see According to the Media and According to the Research). The embedded fi gures task has also yielded complex results for gender and ethnic background, suggesting that men have no clear advantage for this measure of spatial ability (Kühnen et al., 2001).

Figure 7.4 Spatial Tasks Favoring Women

182 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Women’s advantage in spatial abilities appears on measures of perceptual speed and on memory for the placement of objects. Therefore, of the gender differences in spatial abilities that exist, a number of the differences favor men, a few favor women, and some vary by gender, culture, context, expectation, or some combinations of these factors.

Other Cognitive Abilities

Verbal, mathematical, and spatial abilities are important and have been the subjects of exten- sive research, but these are only three of many cognitive abilities. Memory, creativity, musical ability, and nonverbal communication are all cognitive abilities that have been the emphasis of fewer studies than verbal, mathematics, and spatial skills. Much of the research has failed to show gender-related differences, which may be one reason for the lesser attention. A con- sideration of these other cognitive abilities is important for perspective on comparisons of gender-related cognitive abilities; the emphasis on gender differences in verbal, mathematics, and spatial performance leaves the impression that women’s and men’s cognitive abilities differ more than they do.

The enduring gender stereotype that women get lost and men never ask directions relates to cognitive differences in spatial abilities but also draws on memory and problem-solving

According to the Media . . . Video Games are for Boys

Popular video games are oriented to boys. Both arcade games and home video games contain primarily male characters, lots of action and violence, and plots attractive to boys and men (Dickerman, Christensen, & Kerl-McClain, 2008). The websites that promote these video games contain similar content of violence, sexualized depictions of women, and ethnic stereotypes (Robinson, Callister, Clark, & Phillips, 2008).

The most common portrayal of women in video games consists of nothing— literally. Less than 14% of characters in a sample of video games were female (Beasley & Collins Standley, 2002). When women appear in video games, sometimes they are helpless and in need of rescue; sometimes they are evil and need to be conquered. Female characters also appear in the background as supporters of male characters (Dickerman et al., 2008). Occasionally female characters get to be heroes, but they are cast in the role of female warrior, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Labre & Duke, 2004) and Lara Croft, Tomb Raider (Jansz & Martis, 2007). Regardless of their role, they are often large-breasted and provocatively dressed.

The amount of violence in video games is an area of concern (Dill, Gentile, Richter, & Dill, 2005; Williams, 2003). Early video games tended to depict spaceships and aliens, but human or humanlike characters are now more common. Thus, players have repeated exposure to chasing and doing violence to both male and female characters. In addition, 21% of the games include violence directed specifi cally toward women. These games give players the opportunity to act within a situation in which women are the designated targets of video violence.

The combination of themes for boys, few female characters, and fewer attractive, powerful female characters makes video games more appealing to boys than to girls. The portrayals of women as victims, targets, or sex objects expose girls to unfl attering depictions of female characters because girls’ and women’s participation in playing video games has increased since the early years of videogaming (Bertozzi, 2012).

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 183

According to the Research . . . Video Games Can Improve Spatial Skills

Despite the bad news about video games—violence and sexist portrayals—playing these games may develop boys’ cognitive skills, especially spatial performance. That is, boys’ enthusiasm for video games may contribute to their advantage in performance on spatial tasks.

Boys play video games more than girls (Marshall, Gorely, & Biddle, 2006; Robinson et al., 2008), and their choice of games also differs (Jenson & Castell, 2011). Girls were more common among those classifi ed as “logic and skill players,” whereas boys were most common in the category “action and stimulation players” (Quaiser-Pohl, Geiser, & Lehmann, 2006). Individuals in the latter category scored higher on tests of mental rotation, suggesting that either the players who are good at this skill select these games or the games develop this skill. Some research suggests the latter possibility—playing video games develops spatial performance.

Several studies have trained participants using video games to determine the benefi t for boosting spatial performance (Cherney, 2008; Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007). The results indicate that gaming increases performance for both males and females, with women’s performance boosted more than men’s. In addition, the spatial ability that increases most is the one on which women’s scores are lowest—mental rotation. Even minimal practice can prompt signifi cant improvement.

The design and marketing of video games for boys puts girls at a double disadvan- tage. Girls may fi nd these games unattractive and avoid this type of activity. Boys have a greater incentive to participate in activities that boost skills on which they already have higher performance, whereas girls have lower motivation to play video games that could improve their spatial skills. However, there is some good news: Improvements in spatial performance are also possible through other types of com- puter use (Terlecki & Newcombe, 2005) and even other types of spatial activities, such as music, visual art, and athletics (Ginn & Pickens, 2005). Thus, girls have several ways that they can gain experiences that may improve their performance on spatial tasks.

strategies. According to the stereotype, men excel at this ability, but research on wayfi nd- ing presents a more complex picture suggesting that both men and women have developed strategies that allow them to fi nd their way. However, those strategies tend to differ by gen- der. Men are more likely than women to use a strategy that involves orienting to directions and forming an abstract map of the area, whereas women are more likely to use landmarks to fi nd their way (Cherney, Brabec, & Runco, 2008; Nori & Giusberti, 2006). Which of these strategies is best? It depends on the situation. In laboratory situations, such as abstract mazes and virtual reality situations, the directional strategy leads to fewer errors and more rapid problem solution (Malinowski, 2001; Saucier et al., 2002). When allowed to use their preferred strategy in a real-world situation, the gender differences disappear. That is, women are worse at directions only when they are forced to use the strategy that men typically prefer. In terms of women’s ability to fi nd their way, they do as well as men (Bosco, Longoni, & Vecchi, 2004). However, men also benefi t from information about landmarks—mentioning a landmark improved performance in locating an object in the environment for both male and female participants (Clarke, Elsner, & Rohde, 2015).

184 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Memory performance can draw from either verbal or spatial abilities, depending on the type of material. The majority of tasks that psychologists have studied fall into the cat- egory of verbal learning and memory. According to Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) review of research in this area, few gender-related differences exist. However, some studies have found a female advantage for verbal material (Kimura & Clarke, 2002). Some studies have found an advantage for men for visual or spatial material (Herlitz & Rehnman, 2008), but other studies (Lewin, Wolgers, & Herlitz, 2001) have shown no gender differences in this ability.

Some of the gender-related variations in memory seem strongly related to the gender- stereotypical nature of the task and to the match between stereotyping and the gender of the learner. For example, when women and men were asked to memorize a shopping list and directions to a particular place, the differences were in a predictable direction—women better at the shopping list and men at the directions (Herrmann, Crawford, & Holdsworth, 1992). Furthermore, the labeling of the task infl uenced women’s and men’s memories. When people heard that the shopping list pertained to groceries, women showed an advantage, but when the same list was described as pertaining to hardware, men’s memories were better. An extension of this study (Colley, Ball, Kirby, Harvey, & Vingelen, 2001) demonstrated again that memory performance depended on a combination of the labeling of the task and the gender of the learner rather than the skill of either women or men as learners. Consistent with gender stereotyping, women tend to be better at recalling details of personal appear- ance (Mast & Hall, 2006). Thus, memory may depend on factors other than ability, with men and women performing according to their attention, interests, and expectations based on stereotypes.

Creativity is a term that researchers have defi ned in a variety of ways, leading to a great diversity of fi ndings. Studies of kindergarten children (Pollatou, Karadimou, & Gerodimos, 2005), children in grades 4 through 8 (Rejskind, Rapagna, & Gold, 1992), fi fth- and sev- enth-grade students in China and Germany (Shi, Xu, Zhou, & Zha, 1999), college students (Goldsmith & Matherly, 1988), and adults in the Canary Islands (Matud, Rodríguez, & Grande, 2007) have failed to show gender-related differences in various types of creativity. In a wide-scale review of research on creativity (Baer, 2008), few gender differences appeared; measures of creativity, self-assessments of creativity, and judgments of the creative products of males and females of various ages fail to show marked gender differences. A study that examined brain activity during cognition (Abraham, Thybusch, Pieritz, & Hermann, 2013) found no differences in creative performance but differences in brain activity during several types of creative cognitions.

When researchers defi ne creativity in terms of achievement, the gender differences are large. In these situations, men’s advantage may not be due to greater creative ability but rather to access to training, parental and societal encouragement, and limited acceptance of women in creative fi elds (Baer, 2008). A study of women who have become successful musicians (Stremikis, 2002) showed that these women focused on professional success, often from young ages, and conformed less to gender stereotypes than did women who have not pursued such careers. If gifted girls were encouraged to devote themselves to their talents in the same ways that boys are encouraged, the gender differences would be smaller.

Nonverbal communication includes a variety of behaviors related to conveying and receiv- ing information through gestures, body position, and facial expressions, and some gender differences exist in both expressing and interpreting nonverbal behaviors (Hall, Coats, & Lebeau, 2005). Women are more likely than men to make and keep eye contact and touch themselves. In addition, their facial expressions are more revealing of their emotions (Thun- berg & Dimberg, 2000). One large contrast is women’s tendency to smile; women smile more often than men do (LaFrance, Hecht, & Levy Paluck, 2003). This tendency may not reveal more pleasant moods for women. Rather, smiling may refl ect their subordinate status.

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 185

Indeed, gender differences in nonverbal behavior may relate to power and status. Early research by Sara Snodgrass (1985, 1992) showed that no gender distinctions existed in the ability to read cues of people’s motives, feelings, and wishes. Instead, she found that people in subordinate positions were better at reading the nonverbal behaviors of those in dominant positions. Later research (Snodgrass, Hecht, & Ploutz-Snyder, 1998) explored the possibility that those in dominant positions send better cues, which leads those in subordinate positions to interpret the situation better. These fi ndings suggest that gender is not a direct factor in interpreting nonverbal behavior; status is more important. Other research (Hall et al., 2005) has confi rmed the importance of status and power in various types of nonverbal behaviors and the relationship of gender to many measures of status and power.

Although the gender differences are small in verbal, mathematical, and spatial abilities, variations are even smaller or nonexistent in other cognitive abilities, such as memory, creativity, musical ability, and nonverbal communication. The studies that have revealed gender-related differences in performance in these areas have shown that they come from stereotypes, gender roles, and expectations rather than from ability differences. Table 7.3 summarizes gender differences in cognitive skills and performance and indicates how large any differences are.

Table 7.3 Summary of Gender Differences in Cognitive Performance

Type of Skill or Activity Gender Advantage Magnitude of Advantage

Stanford-Binet IQ Test None

Wechsler IQ Test Verbal—Women Performance—Men

Small Small

Language acquisition Girls Medium

Reading Girls Medium

Writing Girls and women Large

Grades in reading and writing Girls and women Medium to Large

Number of words spoken per day None

Arithmetic computation Girls & women Small

Mathematics exams for 12th graders None

Geometry Men Small

SAT and GRE Mathematics test Men Medium

Higher-level math performance Men Large

Mathematics disability Women Medium

Grades in mathematics Girls and women Medium to Large

Spatial perception tasks Boys and men Small—children/adolescents Medium to large—adults

Mental rotation Boys and men Large

Spatial visualization None

Spatiotemporal ability Men Small to none

Wayfi nding None—if each may use preferred strategy

If women use landmarks and men orient to direction and construct mental map

Memory Depends on material

Creativity/success in music Men Depends on access to training

Interpreting facial expression People in subordinate positions Medium to Large

186 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

She explained that lots of girls play in the school band. There is generally no prejudice against girls who are musicians, but the band is gender segregated by musical instrument. The instruments toward the front of the band are more “feminine,” such as violins, clarinets, and cellos. The instruments toward the back are more “masculine,” such as tubas and the percussion instruments: “There are lots more girls toward the front of the band, and the boys dominate the back.

“At the all-city band competition, it was especially bad. The boys who played percussion were especially obnoxious, acting like I shouldn’t be trying. They acted like it was their right as boys to be able to play drums or other percussion—like there was something on the Y chromosome that gave them the gift. Well, I guess they were really surprised when I won.”

Source of the Differences

Considering how small most gender differences in cognitive performance are, a great deal of research and popular attention has focused on the source of these differences. If stereotypes, roles, and expectations shape performance on aptitude and achievement tests, then are these factors the source of differences between men and women? What role does biology play in the gender distinctions in cognitive performance? The possibility that cognitive gender dif- ferences can be traced to biology offers a simple answer to many complex questions and thus appeals to many people. Resorting to biological essentialism is a strong media bias (Brescoll & Lafrance, 2004) which affects people’s acceptance of such explanations. Media reports of gender differences that include the term “hard-wired” imply not only a biological basis but also a low possibility of variation or change. Which view does the evidence support?

Biological Evidence for Gender Differences in Cognitive Abilities

Several theories have proposed a biological basis for gender differences in cognitive abilities. These theories concentrate on genes, hormones, or structural variations in the brain that create functional differences in cognition. One biologically based view emphasizes the role of evolution, which has built different brains for men and women (Silverman, Choi, & Peters, 2007). Following this explanation, distinct role demands of men and women in the hunter–gatherer societies of prehistory posed different task demands and resulted in different brain organization. Thus, men should be better at spatial tasks because their evolutionary history included traveling to hunt, whereas women stayed home; women should be better at verbal tasks because they talked to their children. Although the logic of these stories may be appealing, these speculations are impossible to confi rm or disconfi rm; those early societies are gone and can no longer be observed.

Also, alternative stories make as much sense. For example, more remote periods in prehis- tory when prehumans were tree dwellers would present similar selection pressures for spatial abilities for both females and males (Benderly, 1987). Poor spatial abilities would result in

Gendered Voices: It’s Not Something on the Y Chromosome “I don’t think that it’s something on the Y chromosome,” a 13-year-old girl said, referring to the ability to play percussion. “But some boys act like it is. The boys in the school band are used to me because I’ve played percussion all through junior high school with them, but when I go to competitions, the boys act like I shouldn’t be playing percussion. Almost like it’s an insult that a girl should be playing.”

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 187

falling out of trees, which would not be conducive to survival and reproduction. Humans are the product of evolutionary history, but the strategy of hypothesizing which evolution- ary pressures resulted in what types of cognitive abilities has many possible versions and no way of confi rming these hypotheses (Bleie, 2003; Newcombe, 2007). Thus, this view has problems as a scientifi c explanation.

Another biologically based theory relies on the role of prenatal testosterone exposure on brain development. Recall from Chapter 4 that, beginning at about 6 weeks in prenatal development, male fetuses begin to produce androgens that exert masculinizing effects. These androgens have the potential to affect the developing nervous system, perhaps produc- ing changes in the structure and function of the brain. Examining the function of the brains of women exposed to prenatal androgens provides one way to test this hypothesis. Studies of these girls have not always indicated enhanced spatial performance (Malouf, Migeon, Car- son, Petrucci, & Wisniewski, 2006). A meta-analysis (Puts, McDaniel, Jordan, & Breedlove, 2008) showed an advantage, but a comparison of girls with high prenatal androgen exposure compared with normal girls (Wong, Pasterski, Hindmarsh, Geffner, & Hines, 2013) found no advantage in mental rotation for the androgen-exposed girls. Another study (Mueller et al., 2008) suggested that girls with a more severe form of the disorder (and thus greater testosterone exposure) were the ones whose spatial performance increased. A study that measured hormone levels in men and women (Halari et al., 2005) found no relationship to spatial or verbal performance. Thus, exposure to testosterone during prenatal development may exert effects that infl uence adult performance, but hormonal levels during adulthood do not seem to be a factor in gender differences in spatial performance.

Another strategy for studying sex differences in cognition involves using brain imaging technology to determine whether women’s and men’s brains function differently while per- forming cognitive tasks. This strategy makes use of brain imaging technology such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which can detect metabolic changes in the brain that accompany heightened neural activity (Pinel, 2014). This approach allows researchers to determine the similarities and differences in the function (rather than the structure) of female and male brains during varying cognitive tasks.

Several studies using brain imaging have found the expected (and some unexpected) variations in brain processing during cognitive tasks. The expected fi ndings include greater activity in the left hemisphere during verbal performance and greater activity in the right hemisphere during spatial tasks. In a comparison of brain activation during a verbal and a spatial task (Gur et al., 2000), the expected differences appeared in both women and men, but other, unexpected areas of the brain were also active, including left hemisphere activa- tion for women when they performed the spatial task. Unexpectedly, men’s performance was equal to women’s on a working memory task, but men’s brains showed a higher level of activation during the task (Bell, Willson, Wilman, Dave, & Silverstone, 2006). Both men’s and women’s left hemispheres were more active during a verbal task (Baxter et al., 2003), but women’s right hemispheres were also active during this task. However, an analysis of activation of left hemisphere and right hemisphere function (Nielsen, Zielinski, Ferguson, Lainhart, & Anderson, 2013) showed networks of interconnectivity in each hemisphere that shared similarities from person to person but no gender differences.

Do such results suggest that men and women use their brains differently? Possibly, but the studies also tend to show that the patterns of activation are more similar than not and that some male or female brains do not react in the pattern that is typical for their sex. These results present a complex picture of brain function, which is summarized in Table 7.4 . Neu- roscientist Lise Eliot (2009, p. 5) commented, “The reality, judging by current research, is that the brains of boys and girls are more similar than their well-described behavioral dif- ferences would indicate.”

188 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Researchers have concentrated on gender differences to try to understand the intricacies of how brains function. Many of these research projects have become headlines that have sensationalized small distinctions, leaving people with the impression that hormones or brain structures produce large, important gender differences in cognition. The evidence indicates that, under some circumstances, men’s and women’s brains (on the average) function differ- ently. The variation from person to person is much larger than the contrast between women and men. However, the research indicates that hormonal and functional brain differences are capable of infl uencing cognitive performance in men and women.

Evidence for Other Sources of Gender Differences

Although many people have a tendency to think in terms of either biological or environ- mental infl uences, almost all current researchers accept that both contribute to cognitive performance. Furthermore, separating biological from environmental factors is virtually impossible. Therefore, the list is extensive for other sources of gender differences in cogni- tive performance.

Training and experience play an obvious role in cognitive performance. An example of this effect appeared in a study of spatial performance in secondary school students (Tlauka, Williams, & Williamson, 2008) that examined differences not only among boys and girls but among individuals in each group. The results indicated that students who participated in physical education showed better spatial performance than those who did not. A second study (Roberts & Bell, 2000) showed that men’s advantage on a spatial task disappeared when the women in the study were allowed to familiarize themselves with the computer that was part of the study before they performed the mental rotation task. Another study (Scali, Brownlow, & Hicks, 2000) suggested that the gender difference in spatial task performance could be erased by the directions that researchers give to participants. When these research- ers told the participants that accuracy was very important, gender differences appeared, but other instructions failed to produce the expected male advantage. All of these studies suggest that performance on spatial tasks—the type of task on which the largest gender difference appears—can change with experience and with instructions.

Another environmental factor that is capable of affecting cognitive performance is stereo- type threat , a term originated by Claude Steele (Steele & Aronson, 1995). As discussed in Chapter 3 , stereotype threat describes situations in which the presence of negative

Table 7.4 Patterns of Brain Activation in Women and Men during Various Tasks

Type of Task Activation Pattern Higher Activation Occurs in

Performance Advantage

Verbal memory Higher brain metabolic activity Women Yes

Verbal task Left hemisphere more active Both No Right hemisphere active Women No

Spatial task Right hemisphere more active Both No Left hemisphere active Women No

Verbal rhyming task Left hemisphere active Both No Right hemisphere active Women No

Mental rotation Activation in three lobes of cerebral cortex Both No

Working memory Right hemisphere more active Men No

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 189

stereotypes affects the performance of those to whom the stereotype applies. Many studies have indicated that stereotype threat is a factor in women’s poorer performance in math- ematics, but the effect applies to a wide variety of situations. For example, the performance of college women was worse on a math test when they heard that men do better on this type of test, but men’s performance declined when they heard that Asians outperform Whites (Smith & White, 2002). Stereotype threat also applies to performance on a mental rotation task (Burns, Peterson, Bass, & Pascoe, 2002), and women with a feminine gender role orientation performed more poorly on a spatial task when the task was described as a spatial task than when the same task was presented as an empathy task (Massa et al., 2005). However, women’s performance on a mental rotation task increased when they were reminded of their status at the selective private school they attended (McGlone & Aronson, 2006).

Thus a variety of experiences, instructions, and expectations contribute. These factors form a complex interaction with biological factors infl uencing behavior and behavior infl uencing biology (Halpern, 2004). In addition, the factors that infl uence academic choices are critically important. Choices are rooted in a cultural setting infl uenced by gender roles and stereotypes, parental pressure, and teacher perception. Table 7.5 sum- marizes biological and experiential factors that may infl uence performance on cognitive tasks. Most researchers agree that both factors are infl uential.

Implications of Gender-Related Differences As reviewed in previous sections of this chapter, gender-related differences in cognitive per- formance are small. These small differences should mean equally small differences in scho- lastic and occupational achievement for which these abilities are required, as well as small differences in confi dence in mental abilities. Instead, there are large contrasts in the choices that men and women make concerning careers and also in their confi dence in their abilities. These choices and levels of confi dence may be mediated through social beliefs about the abilities of men and women. People’s behavior may be more closely related to their images of what men and women can do than to what women and men actually do.

Misunderstandings of gender research have contributed to these images. Hyde (2005b) has discussed the ways in which research on gender-related cognitive differences has led to erroneous beliefs about these abilities. Her meta-analyses have been important in dem- onstrating that the magnitude of these distinctions is small and appear to be decreasing. These small differences mean that a factor, such as gender, that accounts for 1% of the variance in an ability leaves 99% of the difference in that ability due to other factors. Figure 7.5 presents two distributions of scores that have a 99% overlap, leaving a 1% difference. This fi gure shows how similar the two distributions are. If 1% of the variance

Table 7.5 Proposed Biological and Experiential Infl uences on Cognitive Performance

Possible Biological Infl uences Experiential Infl uences

Evolution has built different brains for women and men

Familiarity with experimental equipment boosted women’s performance on a spatial task

Prenatal testosterone exposure changes developing brains

Stereotype threat decreased performance on gender- stereotypical tasks

Brain imaging technology shows women’s and men’s brains function in some different (and many) similar ways

Participation in physical education and playing video games improves spatial performance for both sexes

190 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

in verbal ability were due to gender, we would not know much about any specifi c person’s verbal ability by knowing that person’s gender, because too much variation in verbal ability would be due to other factors.

Stereotypes based on gender differences in these cognitive abilities will lead to incorrect conclusions about the abilities of men and women, because women and men vary more from one person to another than from one gender to another. With only a small percent- age of the variance attributable to gender, individual differences overwhelm any gender difference.

However, even small differences can have larger implications, as one computer simulation study showed (Martell, Lane, & Emrich, 1996). Researchers created an organization with eight employment levels. A computer algorithm then simulated promotion based on ability within this hypothetical organization, with a 5% and a 1% difference in ability (with women having less ability than men, of course). With an initially equal number of women and men in the hypothetical workforce, the simulation resulted in 35% of the top-level jobs going to women (for the 1% defi cit). When women were given a 5% defi cit in ability, they ended up in 29% of the top-level positions.

Does this simulation mirror workplace situations? Probably not. Few cognitive abilities show as much as a 5% difference between women and men, mental rotation being an exception. Mental rotation shows about a 9% difference, which is enough to make a sizable difference for any occupation that relies entirely on mental rotation. However, none does. Indeed, no occupation relies entirely on one mental ability, and many factors contribute to workplace success (Valian, 2007). The simulation also varied from actual employment situ- ations in another respect: An equal number of men and women were hired, which is true of almost no occupation. The selection factors begin years prior to employment and result in a much greater gender inequality in most occupations than in this simulation. For example, consider the gender gap in engineering and in fashion design—engineering is dominated by men, whereas fashion design is female dominated. Both require a high degree of spatial abilities; indeed, a study of college students (Esgate & Flynn, 2005) indicated that students in fashion design showed the highest average levels of spatial abilities of any group of col- lege majors. Thus, ability is often not the most important selection factor that operates to produce gender differences in employment or careers.

Figure 7.5 An Example of Two Distributions with 99% Overlap

Note: This distribution represents differences similar to those for verbal ability in men and women.

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 191

People’s beliefs allow small distinctions in cognitive abilities to have a large impact. When parents, teachers, and children come to accept that boys are better at math than girls, this acceptance leads to differential expectations for math achievement. Even when achievement is similar, parents have different beliefs about the underlying reasons. Parents in the United States (Yee & Eccles, 1988) and in Finland (Räty, Vänskä, Kasanen, & Kärkkäinen, 2002) explained the mathematics success of their sons in terms of natural talent and their daughters in terms of hard work. The belief that math achievement is due to a “gift” for the topic is a dangerous one, leading teachers, parents, children, and the general public to judge who should pursue the subject and the careers that rely on math (Dweck, 2007). These beliefs affect the attitudes that individuals hold concerning their abilities and the choices that girls and boys make concerning their elective math courses, which may create lifelong consequences for attitudes toward the subject as well as career options. Although the gender-related differences in cognitive abilities are small, people’s acceptance throughout society magnifi es these differences.

In summary, meta-analysis has shown that the magnitude of gender differences is small for verbal, quantitative, and spatial abilities. Gender differences in these three areas account for between 1% and 5% of the variation, which is smaller than variations from person to person. However, the gender stereotyping of cognitive domains has magnifi ed small differences, thus perpetuating the belief that gender-related differences exist and that there are large contrasts in the abilities of women and men.

Considering Diversity

Most of the studies on cognitive abilities have focused on European Americans in the United States, and many imagine that these results apply to other groups. Cross-cultural research indicates otherwise. Studies on various ethnic groups in the United States and research in other countries have indicated that cognition varies with culture. Indeed, cultural variations may be larger than those related to gender.

Some cultures show patterns of spatial performance similar to those in the United States. For example, males showed better performance than females in Japan, Ecuador, and Ire- land (Flaherty, 2005), in Ghana and Norway (Amponsah, 2000), in Kuwait (Alansari, Deregowski, & McGeorge, 2008), and in a worldwide study of 53 countries (Lippa, Col- laer, & Peters, 2010). However, spatial performance varied among the cultures. For exam- ple, people in Ecuador scored lower than those in Japan and Ireland (Flaherty, 2005), and students in Japan scored higher than those in Canada (Silverman, Phillips, & Silverman, 1996). Indeed, the women in some cultures scored higher than the men in other countries, indicating that variations exist across cultures even when the pattern of gender differences is similar to that found in the United States.

A program of cross-cultural research on gender differences in spatial perception has revealed large cultural distinctions. One result from the Auca Indians, a Stone Age culture living in the Amazon basin (Pontius, 1997b), revealed a very dissimilar pattern of gender differences in spatial performance from that in the United States. In this culture, the women outperformed the men in block design tasks in which U.S. men have an advantage over women. Boys and girls in northwestern Pakistan perform similarly in spatial abilities. A study of children in eastern Ecuador (Pontius, 1997a) failed to fi nd gender differences in a mental rotation task. A study with Norwegian sixth-grade students (Manger & Eikeland, 1998) also failed to reveal gender differences in spatial visualization. Therefore, a variety of cultures fail to show the gender contrasts typical of those in the United States.

Richard Nisbett (2003) also questioned the universality of gender differences in cognitive processes, concentrating instead on the contrast between Western and Eastern cognitive

192 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

styles. Nisbett argued that a long tradition of analytic, individualistic thought in Western cultures and a similarly long tradition of holistic, relational thinking in Eastern cultures has produced very distinct ways of thinking. He described studies that demonstrated a tendency among people in China, Japan, and Korea to notice and remember a wider variety of things in a picture, to be more infl uenced by the context of an event, and to have diffi culty in separating the situation from the person. This dependence on situation led to poorer per- formance on the rod-and-frame test, one of the tests for spatial performance, than that by people in the United States (Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000). A comparison of people from two Western countries (United States and Germany) and two non-Western countries (Russia and Malaysia) supported cross-cultural differences by revealing that the people from Russia and Malaysia had more trouble seeing fi gures embedded in a drawing (Kühnen et al., 2001). Nisbett (2003) contended that his research has isolated few gender differences that are as large as cultural differences in cognitive processes.

Summary

The assessment of intelligence and cognitive abilities has a long history in psychology, dating from the development of the intelligence test. The Stanford-Binet, an early intelligence test, showed no gender differences, but the Wechsler tests revealed advantages on verbal tasks for women and girls and advantages in performance tasks for men and boys.

Assessing gender differences in various types of cognitive performance is complicated by the defi nition of what the assessments measure, and verbal, mathematics, and spatial per- formance have all been defi ned in various ways. Despite the stereotypical views of women’s advantage in verbal abilities and men’s advantage in mathematics and spatial performance, the research shows a more complex picture. Women and men have advantages and disad- vantages in each of these categories, depending on the skill. Individual differences are much more important than gender in each of these cognitive abilities.

The verbal advantage that was once associated with women is not only small but also disappearing, except for performance on writing tasks, which remains large. Boys and men perform better on a few standardized mathematics tests, but girls and women make better math grades. Men show a large advantage in performing spatial visualization and mental rotation tasks and an occasional advantage on spatial perception tasks, but women show advantages on tasks of perceptual speed and memory for placement of objects. Therefore, any conclusion about a male advantage in spatial ability is overly simplistic.

Other cognitive abilities show no gender-related differences. These abilities include learn- ing and memory, creativity, musical ability, and the ability to read nonverbal cues. Some studies have shown gender differences in these abilities, but these studies have fallen along gender-stereotypical lines. Studies on wayfi nding have revealed variations in strategies, with women preferring landmarks and men preferring position orientation as the way to navi- gate. These strategy differences do not give any advantage for success in fi nding one’s way, especially in real-world situations. The differential achievement for men and women in creative arts and music refl ects variance in social support and access to these careers rather than advantages in ability.

Both biological and social theories attempt to explain gender differences in cognitive abilities. The biological theories have focused on prenatal hormone exposure and their effects on developing brain structures. The results from brain imaging studies suggest that gender variations exist in patterns of brain activity, but few differences appear in performance.

Theories that emphasize the social aspects of gender-related cognitive differences hypoth- esize that biological distinctions become magnifi ed and selected through cultural and

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 193

experiential processes, producing larger variations in women’s and men’s choices than in their abilities. Beliefs in ability differences and the choices women and men make have huge implications for their lives.

Studies of other cultures and other ethnic groups have revealed that the advantage for men in mathematics and spatial ability tests may be the result of testing a limited group. White college students in the United States show larger gender differences, but other groups around the world vary from U.S. samples and from each other. However, cross-cultural research on cognition indicates that cultural infl uences on thought may be large.

Glossary

mental rotation a subtype of spatial ability that includes the ability to visualize objects as they would appear if rotated in space.

spatial perception a subtype of spatial ability that includes the ability to identify and locate the horizontal or vertical in the presence of distracting information.

spatial visualization a subtype of spatial ability that refers to the ability to process spatial information so as to understand the relationship between objects in space, such as the ability to see a fi gure embedded in other fi gures, fi nd hidden fi gures in a drawing or picture, or imagine the shape produced when a folded piece of paper is cut and then unfolded.

spatiotemporal ability a subtype of spatial ability that involves judgments about moving objects in space, such as making a judgment about when a moving object will arrive at a target.

Suggested Readings

Ceci, Stephen J.; & Williams, Wendy M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fi elds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 (5), 275–279. This article examines women’s lower participation in math and related fi elds and proposes that choice, not

ability, is the underlying reason.

Halpern, Diane F. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Halpern’s examination of gender differences in cognition is not an easy read, but it is comprehensive, careful,

and critical, integrating theory and research fi ndings with a dedication to being thorough rather than adhering to any specifi c ideology.

Hyde, Janet Shibley. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60 , 581–592. Hyde presents an analysis of all the meta-analyses that have evaluated gender differences and concludes

that the evidence supports a hypothesis of gender similarities, not differences. Those fi ndings apply to almost all types of cognitive performance, with the exception of mental rotation, which shows medium to large advantages for men.

Suggested Websites

FairTest: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing presents criticisms of standardized testing and advo- cates for alternatives. Their website include a page (http://www.fairtest.org/sat-act-bias-persist) with critiques of the SAT and ACT; other sections of the website contain analysis and criticisms of other standardized tests and objections to the growing reliance on such tests.

Those who want to experience an IQ test can do so by visiting Queendom’s website (http://www.queendom. com/tests/testscontrol.htm?s=72). Although an online assessment does not offer the validity of testing by a trained administrator on one of current versions of tests developed by Binet or Wechsler, the “Classical IQ Test” option is intended to assess the same type and range of cognitive performance.

194 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

References

Abraham, Anna; Thybusch, Kristin; Pieritz, Karoline; & Hermann, Christiane. (2013). Gender differences in creative thinking: Behavioral and fMRI fi ndings. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 8 (1), 39–51. doi:10.1007/ s11682–013–9241–4.

Alansari, Bader M.; Deregowski, Jan B.; & McGeorge, Peter. (2008). Sex differences in spatial visualization of Kuwaiti school children. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36 (6), 811–824.

Amponsah, Benjamin. (2000). A comparison of sex differences in visual-spatial performance from preadoles- cence to adulthood in Ghana and Norway. South African Journal of Psychology, 30 (4), 25–31.

Baer, John. (2008). Evidence of gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42 (2), 78–105. Barral, Jéôme; & Debû, Bettina. (2004). Aiming in adults: Sex and laterality effects. Laterality, 9 , 299–312. Baxter, L. C.; Saykin, A. J.; Flashman, L. A.; Johnson, S. C.; Guerin, S. J.; Babcock, D. R.; & Wishart, H. A.

(2003). Sex differences in semantic language processing: A functional MRI study. Brain and Language, 84 , 264–272.

Beasley, Berrin; & Collins Standley, Tracy. (2002). Shirts vs. skins: Clothing as an indicator of gender role ste- reotyping in video games. Mass Communications and Society, 5 , 279–293.

Bell, Emily C.; Willson, Morgan C.; Wilman, Alan H.; Dave, Sanjay; & Silverstone, Peter H. (2006). Males and females differ in brain activation during cognitive tasks. NeuroImage, 30 , 529–538.

Benbow, Camilla Persson; & Stanley, Julian C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210 , 1262–1264.

Benbow, Camilla Persson; & Stanley, Julian C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222 , 1029–1031.

Benderly, Beryl Lieff. (1987). The myth of two minds . New York: Doubleday. Bertozzi, Elena. (2012). Killing for girls: Predation play and female empowerment. Bulletin of Science, Technology

& Society, 32 (6), 447–454. Bleie, Tone. (2003). Evolution, brains, and the predicament of sex in human cognition. Sexualities, Evolution

and Gender, 5 , 149–189. Boehnke, Klaus. (2008). Peer pressure: A cause of scholastic underachievement? A cross-cultural study of math-

ematical achievement among German, Canadian, and Israeli middle school students. Social Psychology of Education, 11 (2), 149–160.

Bosco, Andrea; Longoni, Anna M.; & Vecchi, Tomaso. (2004). Gender effects in spatial orientation: Cognitive profi les and mental strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18 , 519–532.

Brescoll, Victoria; & LaFrance, Marianne. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 13 (8), 515–520.

Burns, Sheila L.; Peterson, Holly; Bass, Hope; & Pascoe, Neil. (2002). Gender differences on a mental rotation task: The effects of stereotype threat. Michigan Academician, 34 , 84–85.

Camarata, Stephen; & Woodcock, Richard. (2006). Sex differences in processing speed: Developmental effects in males and females. Intelligence, 34 (3), 231–252.

Caplan, Paula J.; MacPherson, Gael M.; & Tobin, Patricia. (1985). Do sex-related differences in spatial abilities exist? A multilevel critique with new data. American Psychologist, 40 , 786–799.

Ceci, Stephen J.; & Williams, Wendy M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fi elds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 (5), 275–279.

Ceci, Stephen J.; Williams, Wendy M.; & Barnett, Susan M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135 (2), 218–261.

Cherney, Isabelle D. (2008). Mom, let me play more computer games: They improve my mental rotation skills. Sex Roles, 59 (11/12), 776–786.

Cherney, Isabelle D.; Brabec, Claire M.; & Runco, Daniel V. (2008). Mapping out spatial ability: Sex differences in way-fi nding navigation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 107 (3), 747–760.

Cheryan, Sapna. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fi elds: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66 (3/4), 184–190.

Clarke, Alasdair D. F.; Elsner, Micha; & Rohde, Hannah. (2015). Giving good directions: Order of mention refl ects visual salience. Frontiers in Psychology , 6 , 1793. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01793.

Coley, Richard. (2001). Differences in the gender gap: Comparisons across racial/ethnic groups in education and work . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 195

Colley, Ann; Ball, Jane; Kirby, Nicola; Harvey, Rebecca; & Vingelen, Ingrid. (2001). Gender-linked differences in everyday memory performance: Effort makes the difference. Sex Roles, 47 , 577–582.

Dean, Cornelia. (2005, February 1). For some girls, the problem with math is that they’re good at it. The New York Times , F3.

Dickerman, Charles; Christensen, Jeff; & Kerl-McClain, Stella Beatríz. (2008). Big breasts and bad guys: Depic- tions of gender and race in video games. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 3 (1), 20–29.

Dill, Karen E.; Gentile, Douglas A.; Richter, William A.; & Dill, Jody C. (2005). Violence, sex, race, and age in popular video games: A content analysis. In Ellen Cole & Jessica Henderson Daniel (Eds.), Featuring females: Feminist analyses of media (pp. 115–130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Dweck, Carol S. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 47–55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (1987). Gender roles and achievement patterns: An expectancy value perspective. In J. M. Reinisch, L. A. Rosenblum, & S. A. Sanders (Eds.), Masculinity/femininity: Basic perspectives (pp. 240–280). New York: Oxford University Press.

Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (2007). Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In Ste- phen J. Ceci & Wendy M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 131–145). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Eliot, Lise. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain . Boston: Houghton Miffl in Harcourt. Else-Quest, Nicole M.; Hyde, Janet Shibley; & Linn, Marcia C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender dif-

ferences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (1), 103–127. Esgate, Anthony; & Flynn, Maria. (2005). The brain-sex theory of occupational choice: A counterexample.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100 , 25–37. FairTest Examiner . (2006, October). Test optional admissions list surges . Retrieved September 7, 2015, from

http://www.fairtest.org/test-optional-admissions-list-surges Feng, Jing; Spence, Ian; & Pratt, Jay. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial

cognition. Psychological Science, 18 (10), 850–855. Fennema, Elizabeth. (1980). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement: Where and why. In L. H. Fox,

L. Brody, & D. Tobin (Eds.), Women and the mathematical mystique (pp. 76–93). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Flaherty, Mary. (2005). Gender differences in mental rotation ability in three cultures: Ireland, Ecuador, and Japan. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 48 , 31–38.

Flynn, James R. (2012). Are we getting smarter? Rising IQ in the twenty-fi rst century . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Furnham, Adrian; Callahan, Ines; & Akande, Debo. (2004). Self-estimates of intelligence: A study in two Afri- can countries. Journal of Psychology, 138 , 265–285.

Furnham, Adrian; Ndlovu, Nancy P. M.; & Mkhize, Nhlanhla. (2009). South African Zulus’ beliefs about their own and their children’s intelligence. South African Journal of Psychology, 39 (2), 157–168.

Furnham, Adrian; Reeves, Emma; & Budhani, Salima. (2002). Parents think their sons are brighter than their daughters: Sex differences in parental self-estimations and estimations of their children’s multiple intelligences. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163 , 24–39.

Gallagher, Ann; Levin, Jutta; & Cahalan, Cara. (2002). Cognitive patterns of gender differences on mathematics admissions tests (ETS Report No. 02–19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Ginn, Sheryl R.; & Pickens, Stefanie J. (2005). Relationships between spatial activities and scores on the mental rotation test as a function of sex. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100 , 877–881.

Goldsmith, Ronald E.; & Matherly, Timothy A. (1988). Creativity and self-esteem: A multiple operationaliza- tion validity study. Journal of Psychology, 122 , 47–56.

Gregory, Robert J. (1987). Adult intellectual assessment . Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gur, Ruben C.; Alsop, David; Glahn, David; Petty, Richard; Swanson, Charlie L.; Maldjian, Joseph A.; . . . Gur,

Raquel E. (2000). An fMRI study of sex differences in regional activation to a verbal and a spatial task. Brain and Language, 74 , 157–170.

Halari, Rozmin; Hines, Melissa; Kumari, Veena; Mehrotra, Ravi; Wheeler, Mike; Ng, Virginia; . . . Sharma, Tonmoy. (2005). Sex differences and individual differences in cognitive performance and their relationship to endogenous gonadal hormones and gonadotropins. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119 , 104–117.

196 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Hall, Judith A.; Coats, Erik J.; & Lebeau, Lavonia Smith. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131 , 898–924.

Halpern, Diane F. (2004). A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differences in cognitive abilities. Current Direc- tions in Psychological Science, 13 , 135–139.

Halpern, Diane F. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Halpern, Diane F.; Benbow, Camilla P.; Geary, David C.; Gur, Ruben C.; Hyde, Janet Shibley; & Gernsbacher,

Morton Ann. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8 (1), 1–51.

Hanlon, Michael. (2012, July 17). Is the female of the species really more intelligent than the male? The Tele- graph . Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9404856/Is-the- female-of-the-species-really-more-intelligent-than-the-male.html

Herlitz, Agneta; & Rehnman, Jenny. (2008). Sex differences in episodic memory. Current Directions in Psycho- logical Science, 17 (1), 52–56.

Herrmann, Douglas J.; Crawford, Mary; & Holdsworth, Michelle. (1992). Gender-linked differences in every- day memory performance. British Journal of Psychology, 83 , 221–231.

Heyman, Gail D.; & Legare, Cristine H. (2004). Children’s beliefs about gender differences in the academic and social domains. Sex Roles, 50 , 227–239.

Honda, Akio; & Nihei, Yoshiaki. (2009). Sex differences in object location memory: The female advantage of immediate detection of changes. Learning & Individual Differences, 19 (2), 234–237.

Hyde, Janet Shibley. (1981). How large are cognitive gender differences? A meta-analysis using ω 2 and D . Ameri- can Psychologist, 36 , 892–901.

Hyde, Janet Shibley. (2005a). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60 , 581–592. Hyde, Janet Shibley. (2005b). The genetics of sexual orientation. In J. S. Hyde (Ed.), Biological substrates of

human sexuality (pp. 9–20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hyde, Janet Shibley; Fennema, Elizabeth; & Lamon, Susan J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics per-

formance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107 , 139–155. Hyde, Janet Shibley; & Linn, Marcia C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychologi-

cal Bulletin, 104 , 53–69. Jacobs, Janis E.; Davis-Kean, Pamela; Bleeker, Martha; Eccles, Jacquelynne S.; & Malanchuk, Oksana. (2005).

“I can, but I don’t want to”: The impact of parents, interests, and activities on gender differences in math. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 246–263). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, Janis E.; & Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (1992). The impact of mothers’ gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 , 932–944.

Jansz, Jeroen; & Martis, Raynel G. (2007). The Lara phenomenon: Powerful female characters in video games. Sex Roles, 56 (3/4), 141–148.

Jenson, Jennifer; & Castell, Suzanne. (2011). Girls@play. Feminist Media Studies, 11 (2), 167–179. Ji, Li-Jun; Peng, Kaiping; & Nisbett, Richard E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the

environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 943–955. Kaufman, Scott Barry. (2012). Men, women, and IQ: Setting the record straight. Psychology Today . Retrieved

March 8, 2016, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women- and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

Kimura, Doreen; & Clarke, Paul G. (2002). Women’s advantage on verbal memory is not restricted to concrete words. Psychological Reports, 91 , 1137–1142.

Kühnen, Ulrich; Hannover, Bettina; Roeder, Ute; Shah, Ashiq Ali; Schubert, Benjamin; Upmeyer, Arnold; & Zakaria, Saliza. (2001). Cross-cultural variations in identifying embedded fi gures: Comparisons from the United States, Germany, Russia, and Malaysia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 , 365–371.

Labre, Magdala Peixoto; & Duke, Lisa. (2004). “Nothing like a brisk walk and a spot of demon slaughter to make a girl’s night”: The construction of the female hero in the Buffy video game. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 28 , 138–156.

LaFrance, Marianne; Hecht, Marvin A.; & Levy Paluck, Elizabeth. (2003). The contingent smile: A meta- analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 129 , 305–334.

Leahey, Erin; & Guo, Guang. (2001). Gender differences in mathematical trajectories. Social Forces, 80 , 713–732.

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 197

Leaper, Campbell; & Ayres, Melanie M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affi liative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11 (4), 328–363.

Leedy, M. Gail; LaLonde, Donna; & Runk, Kristen. (2003). Gender equity in mathematics: Beliefs of students, parents, and teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 103 , 285–292.

Lehre, Anne-Catherine; Lehre, Knut P.; Laake, Petter; & Danbolt, Niels C. (2009). Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans. Developmental Psychobiology, 51 (2), 198–206.

Levy, Lauren J.; Frick, Karyn M.; & Astur, Robert S. (2005). Men and women differ in object memory but not performance of a virtual radial maze. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119 , 853–862.

Lewin, Catharina; Wolgers, Gerhard; & Herlitz, Agneta. (2001). Sex differences favouring women in verbal but not in visuospatial episodic memory. Neuropsychology, 15 , 165–173.

Lewin, Miriam. (1984). “Rather worse than folly?” Psychology measures femininity and masculinity: 1. From Terman and Miles to the Guilfords. In M. Lewin (Ed.), In the shadow of the past: Psychology portrays the sexes (pp. 155–178). New York: Columbia University Press.

Linn, Marcia C.; & Petersen, Anne C. (1986). A meta-analysis of gender differences in spatial ability: Implica- tions for mathematics and science achievement. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 67–101). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lippa, Richard A.; Collaer, Marcia L.; & Peters, Michael. (2010). Sex differences in mental rotation and line angle judgments are positively associated with gender equality and economic development across 53 nations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39 (4), 990–997.

Lubinski, David S.; & Benbow, Camilla Persson. (2007). Sex differences in personal attributes for the develop- ment of scientifi c expertise. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 79–100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons; & Jacklin, Carol Nagy. (1974). The psychology of sex differences . Stanford, CA: Stan- ford University Press.

Malinowski, Jon C. (2001). Mental rotation and real-world wayfi nding. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92 , 19–30. Malouf, Matthew A.; Migeon, Claude J.; Carson, Kathryn A.; Petrucci, Loredana; & Wisniewski, Amy B.

(2006). Cognitive outcome in women affected by congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase defi - ciency. Hormone Research, 65 , 142–150.

Manger, Terje; & Eikeland, Ole-Johan. (1998). The effects of spatial visualization and students’ sex on mathe- matical achievement. British Journal of Psychology, 89 , 17–25.

Marshall, Simon J.; Gorely, Trish; & Biddle, Stuart J. H. (2006). A descriptive epidemiology of screen-based media use in youth: A review and critique. Journal of Adolescence, 29 , 333–349.

Martell, Richard F.; Lane, David M.; & Emrich, Cynthia. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simula- tion. American Psychologist, 51 , 157–158.

Massa, Laura J.; Mayer, Richard E.; & Bohon, Lisa M. (2005). Individual differences in gender role beliefs infl u- ence spatial ability test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 15 , 99–111.

Mast, Marianne Schmid; & Hall, Judith A. (2006). Women’s advantage at remembering others’ appearance: A sys- tematic look at the why and when of a gender difference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 , 353–364.

Matud, M. Plar; Rodríguez, C.; & Grande, J. (2007). Gender differences in creative thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 43 (5), 1137–1147.

McGlone, Matthew S.; & Aronson, Joshua. (2006). Stereotype threat, identity, salience, and spatial reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27 (5), 468–493.

Mehl, Matthias R.; Vazire, Simine; Ramirez-Esparza, Nairín; Statcher, Richard B.; & Pennebaker, James W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science, 317 (5834), 82.

Monahan, John S.; Harke, Maureen A.; & Shelley, Jonathon R. (2008). Computerizing the mental rotations test: Are gender differences maintained? Behavioral Research Methods, 40 (2), 422–427.

Montello, Daniel R.; Lovelace, Kristin L.; Golledge, Reginald G.; & Self, Carole M. (1999). Sex-related differ- ences and similarities in geographic and environmental spatial abilities. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89 , 515–534.

Mueller, S. C.; Temple, V.; Oh, E.; VanRyzin, C.; Williams, A.; Cornwell, B.; . . . Merke, D. P. (2008). Early androgen exposure modulates spatial cognition in Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). Psychoneuroendo- crinology, 33 (7), 973–980.

198 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Nankervis, Bryan. (2011). Inequities in university admission due to the differential validity of the SAT. Journal of College Admission, 213 , 24–30.

Newcombe, Nora S. (2007). Taking science seriously: Straight thinking about spatial sex differences. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 69–77). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Nielsen, Jared A.; Zielinski, Brandon A.; Ferguson, Michael A.; Lainhart, Janet E.; & Anderson, Jeffrey S. (2013). An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS ONE , 8 (8), 1–11.

Nisbett, Richard E. (2003). The geography of thought . New York: Free Press. Nori, Raffaella; & Giusberti, Fiorella. (2006). Predicting cognitive styles from spatial abilities. American Journal

of Psychology, 119 , 67–86. Nosek, Brian A.; Banaji, Mahzarin R.; & Greenwald, Anthony G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore

math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 , 44–59. Ortner, Tuulia; & Sieverding, Monika. (2008). Where are the gender differences? Male priming boosts spatial

skills in women. Sex Roles, 59 (3/4), 274–281. Parsons, Thomas D.; Larson, Peter; Kratz, Kris; Thiebaux, Marcus; Bluestein, Brendon; Buckwalter, J. Galen; &

Rizzo, Albert A. (2004). Sex differences in mental rotation and spatial rotation in a virtual environment. Neuropsychologia, 42 (4), 555–562.

Penner, Andrew M. (2008). Gender differences in extreme mathematical achievement: An international perspec- tive on biological and social factors. American Journal of Sociology, 114 (Suppl.), S138-S170.

Petrides, K. V.; Furnham, Adrian; & Martin, G. Neil. (2004). Estimates of emotional and psychometric intelli- gence. Journal of Social Psychology, 144 , 149–162.

Pinel, John P. J. (2014). Biopsychology (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Pollatou, Elisana; Karadimou, Konstantina; & Gerodimos, Vasillios. (2005). Gender differences in musical

aptitude, rhythmic ability and motor performance in preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 175 , 361–369.

Pontius, Anneliese A. (1997a). Lack of sex differences among east Ecuadorian school children on geometric fi gure rotation and face drawings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85 , 72–74.

Pontius, Anneliese A. (1997b). No gender difference in spatial representation by schoolchildren in northwest Pakistan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28 , 779–786.

Puts, David; McDaniel, Michael; Jordan, Cynthia; & Breedlove, S. Marc. (2008). Spatial ability and prenatal androgens: Meta-analyses of congenital adrenal hyperplasia and digit ratio (2D:4D) studies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37 (1), 100–111.

Quaiser-Pohl, Claudia; Geiser, Christian; & Lehmann, Wolfgang. (2006). The relationship between computer- game preference, gender, and mental-rotation ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 40 , 609–619.

Rammstedt, Beatrice; & Rammsayer, Thomas H. (2002). Gender differences in self-estimated intelligence and their relation to gender-role orientation. European Journal of Personality, 16 , 369–382.

Räty, Hannu; Vänskä, Johanna; Kasanen, Kati; & Kärkkäinen, Riita. (2002). Parents’ explanations of their child’s performance in mathematics and reading: A replication and extension of Yee and Eccles. Sex Roles, 46 (3/4), 121–128.

Rejskind, F. Gillian; Rapagna, Socrates O.; & Gold, Dolores. (1992). Gender differences in children’s divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 5 , 165–174.

Roberts, Jonathan E.; & Bell, Martha Ann. (2000). Sex differences on a computerized mental rotation task disap- pear with computer familiarization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91 , 1027–1034.

Robinson, Tom; Callister, Mark; Clark, Brad; & Phillips, James. (2008). Violence, sexuality, and gender stereo- typing: A content analysis of offi cial video game web sites. Web Journal of Mass Communication Research, 13 , 1–17.

Sanchez, Kathryn; Zimmerman, Laurie; & Ye, Renmin. (2004). Secondary students’ attitudes toward mathemat- ics. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8 , 56–60.

Sanders, Geoff; Sjodin, Marie; & de Chastelaine, Marianne. (2002). On the elusive nature of sex differences in cognition: Hormonal infl uences contributing to within-sex variation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31 , 145–152.

Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities 199

Saucier, Deborah M.; Green, Sheryl M.; Leason, Jennifer; MacFadden, Alastair; Bell, Scott; & Elias, Lorin J. (2002). Are sex differences in navigation caused by sexually dimorphic strategies or by differences in the ability to use the strategies? Behavioral Neuroscience, 116 , 403–410.

Scali, Robyn M.; Brownlow, Sheila; & Hicks, Jennifer L. (2000). Gender differences in spatial task performance as a function of speed or accuracy orientation. Sex Roles, 43 , 359–376.

Schmader, Toni; Johns, Michael; & Barquissau, Marchelle. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex Roles, 50 , 835–850.

Schultz, Duane P.; & Schultz, Sidney Ellen. (2012). A history of modern psychology (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage.

Shi, Jianong; Xu, Fan; Zhou, Lin; & Zha, Zixiu. (1999). Gender differences from the results of a cross-cultural study on technical creativity of children from China and Germany. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 31 , 428–434. (Abstract only).

Shields, Stephanie A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist, 30 , 739–754.

Silverman, Irwin; Choi, Jean; & Peters, Michael. (2007). The hunter-gatherer theory of sex differences in spatial abilities: Data from 40 countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36 (2), 261–268.

Silverman, Irwin; Phillips, Krista; & Silverman, Laura K. (1996). Homogeneity of effect sizes for sex across spatial tests and cultures: Implications for hormonal theories. Brain and Cognition, 31 , 90–94.

Smith, Jessi L.; & White, Paul H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nul- lifi ed stereotypes on mathematical performance: It’s not just a woman’s issue. Sex Roles, 47 , 179–191.

Snodgrass, Sara E. (1985). Women’s intuition: The effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 , 146–155.

Snodgrass, Sara E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 , 154–158.

Snodgrass, Sara E.; Hecht, Marvin A.; & Ploutz-Snyder, Robert. (1998). Interpersonal sensitivity: Expressivity or perceptivity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 , 238–249.

Spelke, Elizabeth S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60 , 950–958.

Spelke, Elizabeth S.; & Grace, Ariel D. (2007). Sex, math, and science. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 57–67). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Steele, Claude M.; & Aronson, Joshua. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 , 797–811.

Stremikis, Barbara A. (2002). The personal characteristics and environmental circumstances of successful women musicians. Creativity Research Journal, 14 , 85–92.

Terlecki, Melissa S.; & Newcombe, Nora S. (2005). How important is the digital divide? The relation of com- puter and videogame usage to gender differences in mental rotation ability. Sex Roles, 53 , 433–441.

Terman, Lewis M.; & Merrill, Maud A. (1937). Measuring intelligence . Boston: Houghton Miffl in. Thunberg, Monika; & Dimberg, Ulf. (2000). Gender differences in facial reactions to fear-relevant stimuli.

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24 , 45–51. Tlauka, Michael; Williams, Jennifer; & Williamson, Paul. (2008). Spatial ability in secondary school students:

Intro-sex differences based on self-selection for physical education. British Journal of Psychology, 99 (3), 427–440.

Valian, Virginia. (2007). Women at the top in science—and elsewhere. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science: Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 27–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

von Stumm, Sophie; Chamorrro-Premuzic, Tomas; & Furnham, Adrian. (2009). Decomposing self-estimates of intelligence: Structure and sex differences across 12 nations. British Journal of Psychology, 100 (2), 429–442.

Voyer, Daniel; Voyer, Susan; & Bryden, M. Philip. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117 , 250–270.

Wallentin, Mikkel. (2009). Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain & Language, 108 (3), 175–183.

200 Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities

Williams, Dmitri. (2003). The video game lightning rod: Constructions of a new media technology, 1970–2000. Information, Communication, and Society, 6 , 523–550.

Willingham, Warren W.; & Cole, Nancy S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Willingham, Warren W.; Cole, Nancy S.; Lewis, Charles; & Leung, Susan Wilson. (1997). Test performance. In

W. W. Willingham & N. S. Cole (Eds.), Gender and fair assessment (pp. 55–126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wong, Wang; Pasterski, Vickie; Hindmarsh, Peter; Geffner, Mitchell; & Hines, Melissa. (2013). Are there paren-

tal socialization effects on the sex-typed behavior of individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42 (3), 381–391.

Yee, Doris K.; & Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (1988). Parent perceptions and attributions for children’s math achieve- ment. Sex Roles, 19 , 317–333.

Headline: “Do Get Mad,” New Scientist , February 9, 2013

The emotion of anger does not have a good reputation. Most experts advise avoiding anger, exerting self-control, and even enrolling in anger management classes to assist in dealing with this emotion. Without much doubt, anger can be dangerous, both to those around the angry person and to the angry person. However, psychologists have discovered some positive effects of experiencing anger and some gender-related differences in who tends to experience these benefi ts (Young, 2013).

One benefi t of experiencing anger is that, in the circumstances, it may be a better alterna- tive than other emotions. Psychologist Jennifer Lerner and her colleagues (Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, & Fischhoff, 2005) investigated emotional reactions to the September 11, 2001 ter- rorist attacks on the United States and found differences in those emotional reactions. Of the nationally representative sample, some reported feeling fear, whereas others reported anger. The experience of fear tended to be associated with increased perceptions of risk and pes- simism, whereas those who felt angry were more inclined toward optimism and less toward risk. The results also showed a gender-stereotypical pattern of difference—women were more likely to experience fear, whereas men felt angry.

Does emotion fi t the gender stereotypes more closely than other gender-related behaviors? Or does the research concerning emotion offer more evidence for gender similarities?

Gender in the Experience and Expression of Emotion

Emotion has been a subject of interest to psychologists since early in the history of the fi eld. Even before psychology began, emotion was a topic of interest to philosophers. Western philosophers tended to conceptualize emotions as irrational and to place emotion opposite the rational thought processes (Averill, 1982). This attitude shaped the rational–emotive dichotomy that persists today (and conveniently corresponds to gender stereotypes). “From the 19th century onwards, rationality and emotionality have largely become associated with the supposedly different natures of men and women, the former fi tted for productive labor and the latter for household and emotional labor” (Fischer, 1993, p. 303). This emotional double standard holds that women are more emotional than men, but this conceptualiza- tion works only by considering a restricted range of emotions—happiness, sadness, disgust, fear, and surprise.

Anger is notably absent from the list of emotions associated with women; anger is strongly associated with men. One way to conceptualize this situation is to classify the emotions associated with women as expressions of powerlessness and those associated with men as expressions of power, which fi ts with the social and economic situations of many women and men. An analysis of data about emotions in 37 countries around the world confi rmed this classifi cation (Fischer, Rodriguez Mosquera, van Vianen, & Hanstead, 2004).

Emotion 8

202 Emotion

The stereotypes of overemotional women and restrained men are among the most preva- lent in the United States. A study on stereotyping of emotion (Plant, Hyde, Keltner, & Devine, 2000) showed a gender bias: men were identifi ed with anger, not women. Partici- pants tended to interpret women’s reactions as sadness rather than anger and had trouble seeing women as angry, even when women’s facial expressions were clearly angry. Similar fi ndings appeared in a study of preschool children, who tended to respond to ambiguous stories by interpreting the women’s responses as sadness but men’s identical responses as anger (Parmley & Cunningham, 2008). In a study in which male and female participants judged source of the emotion of male and female faces (Barrett & Bliss-Moureau, 2009), judgments of dispositional emotionality were signifi cantly more often applied to photos of women, compared to judgments that men with similar expressions were infl uenced by recent events. That is, women were “emotional” but men were “having a bad day.” These studies demonstrate that gender stereotypes for emotionality are very strong, begin early in life, and may result in seeing men’s and women’s emotions as different, even when they are the same.

Gender differences in behavior do not guarantee differences in experience. People can experience an emotion and yet manifest no overt behavior that signals their inner experience. Paul Ekman (1984) defi ned the concept of display rules as “overlearned habits about who can show what emotion to whom and when they can show it” (p. 320). These display rules make it possible to experience one emotion and display another or to display no emotional

Photo 8.1 Display rules prohibit men from openly expressing emotions such as sadness.

Emotion 203

reaction at all despite the internal experience of strong emotion. In addition, the learning of display rules provides an explanation for the variability of emotion reaction from person to person and from culture to culture. The difference in display rules also may explain why angry women behave differently than angry men.

An examination of reports of emotion for a representative sample of U.S. residents showed that men and women reported experiencing emotion with similar frequencies (Simon & Nath, 2004). As Figure 8.1 shows, the specifi c emotions differed. Men reported more experi- ences of positive emotions such as excitement and calm, and women recounted more experi- ences of anxiety and sadness. No difference appeared in the experience of anger or shame, but women who lived with young children experienced more negative emotions. Differences between positive and negative emotions even appear in men’s and women’s brains, according to a meta-analysis of brain imaging studies (Stevens & Hamann, 2012).

The fi ndings from the U.S. survey (Simon & Nath, 2004) are inconsistent with the stereo- types for emotion in several ways. First, the negative effect of children on emotional experi- ence is inconsistent with one of the most cherished stereotypes: maternal instinct. Mothering and the joys of that experience are the basis for the association of women with emotionality. Second, the gender similarity in the experience of anger fl ies in the face of abundant crime

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

13 .3

5

14 .0

1

C alm

13 .2

0 1 4.

29

E xcitem

ent

8. 13

7. 22

A nxiety

4. 74

3. 73

S adness

4. 75

4. 66

A nger

1. 02

1. 11

S ham

e

Men Women

M ea

n S

co re

Figure 8.1 Reports of the Frequency of Various Emotions for Women and Men

Source: Data from “Gender and Emotion in the United States: Do Men and Women Differ in Self-Reports of Feelings and Expressive Behavior?” by R. W. Simon and L. E. Nath, 2004, American Journal of Sociology, 109, Appendix A., p. 1171.

204 Emotion

statistics and barroom brawls. This chapter investigates the inconsistency between gender stereotypes and fi ndings about women’s and men’s emotional experiences by examining two varieties of emotional experience: maternal behavior (a “feminine” expression of emotion) and aggression (a “masculine” expression of emotion). By examining both, we can contrast research fi ndings with the stereotypes.

The Myth of Maternal Instinct

The concept of instinct holds that an instinctive behavior is determined by biological fac- tors and is largely insensitive to environmental or situational conditions. The concept of an instinctive basis for material behavior can be traced to Charles Darwin (1872) and the 19th century. During that time, both women’s intellectual inferiority and their emotional reactions to infants and children were widely accepted (Shields, 2002). Scientifi c thought held that women could not be as intellectually developed as men because their energies were required to go toward reproduction and caregiving. Nature had suited them to focus on immediate situations rather than abstract ones (hence their intellectual inferiority) and to be more perceptive and emotional (hence their attraction to small and helpless beings). The notion that women are endowed with the urge to nurture continues today (Cole, Jayaratne, Cecchi, Feldbaum, & Petty, 2007), with men’s beliefs in maternal instinct stronger than women’s endorsement of the concept.

Among researchers, maternal instinct is not so well established. According to primatolo- gist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (1981, 1999, 2013), observations of various primate species have changed academic opinions of mothers, fathers, and infants. Evolutionary biology places pri- mary emphasis on producing offspring and the factors related to this success, making sexual selection a prominent topic. However, success in evolutionary terms includes not only having offspring but also having offspring that live long enough to have offspring themselves, so the processes of motherhood and nurturing the young are of paramount importance. The study of nonhuman primates brings a wider perspective to the topic of mothering and parental care. Rather than aggression or a lack of male involvement, these studies have shown that male primates’ involvement with infants varies from being the primary caretaker to show- ing little interest. These observations (Hrdy, 1999, 2009) reveal little dangerous aggression toward infants from adult males within the social group (although males from other social groups can be very dangerous). Differences for paternal involvement vary enormously across species; some males formed numerous relationships with infants and young primates, even those they did not father, whereas other males of the same species were less involved with the young (Silverstein, 1993). The evidence from studies of various primate species does not offer consistent support for the concept of maternal instinct (and paternal disinterest). The behavior of primates offers no evidence for biological invariance of nurturing among females and lack of nurturing among males.

Despite the lack of support for the concept of maternal instinct, the notion has lingered longer than belief in other instincts (Cole et al., 2007). As Judith Lorber (1997, p. 13) quipped, “Believing is seeing,” so researchers tended to avoid research in this area or, if they did, had trouble accepting their own observations. One of these hard-to-convince scientists was psychologist Harry Harlow, whose research ironically provided evidence against the validity of the concept of maternal instinct.

Maternal Deprivation and Its Consequences for Nurturing

During the 1950s, Harry Harlow and his colleagues (including his wife, Margaret) con- ducted a series of experiments concerning affection and attachment—of mothers for their

Emotion 205

babies, of babies for their mothers, of fathers for their babies, of children for each other, and so forth. One of Harlow’s questions concerned the effects of maternal deprivation on children, but ethics prevented him from using humans as participants. Instead, he chose to experiment on monkeys.

Harlow’s (1971) research on maternal deprivation originated from his desire to raise infant monkeys in a controlled environment, but he noticed that isolation-reared infant monkeys behaved abnormally. They stared into space for hours, circled their cages or rocked repeti- tively for long periods of time, and repeatedly injured themselves, especially when humans approached (Harlow & Harlow, 1962). Not only did these young monkeys behave oddly when alone, they also failed to fi t into the social group; they fought more and interacted less than monkeys raised normally. They were also sexually abnormal; they appeared interested in sex but unable to mate. Thus, Harlow noticed that the experience of maternal deprivation seemed to have lingering effects on the social and sexual behavior of these monkeys.

Isolation also affected the monkeys’ maternal behavior. When the isolated female monkeys became mothers themselves, they made spectacularly poor ones. These monkey mothers were negligent and abusive, refusing to allow their infants to nurse and sometimes beating them for trying to establish physical contact. Such negligent and abusive behavior did not support the concept of maternal instinct but rather suggested that the experience of isolation from their mothers affected their nurturing behavior. This research suggests that caregiving is dependent on experience and not on instinct.

Harlow (1959) initially believed that being mothered was the critical experience that would allow a monkey to become an adequate mother, but a series of subsequent studies revealed that other social experiences could substitute. Physical contact, however, was criti- cally important in learning “mothering.” Harlow and his colleagues constructed two types of surrogate mothers, one a wire “mother” and the other a cloth-covered wire “mother.” Neither type of surrogate was very much like a real mother monkey; neither moved, held the infants, or responded to them in any way. Although the surrogate mothers were unre- sponsive, the infants were not. The infants strongly preferred the cloth-covered surrogates to the wire surrogates, even if the wire surrogate was the sole source of food. Infants nursed from the wire “mother” but clung to the cloth-covered surrogate for hours and ran to it when frightened. Harlow concluded that the cloth-covered surrogates provided some comfort that the wire surrogates could not, and he called this factor contact comfort , the security provided by physical contact with a soft, caring, or comforting object. However, even these monkeys did not become socially, sexually, or maternally normal, indicating that the cloth surrogate had failed to provide all the experiences that are necessary for normal monkey development.

Additional research showed that the experiences that promote normal nurturing and caregiving in monkeys involve contact with other monkeys. Despite the logic of modeling and imitation, such contact does not have to include the experience of being mothered. That is, being a good mother does not require being adequately mothered. Harlow and Harlow (1962) reported that age-mates can provide the social experiences necessary for normal development. The study involved separating infant monkeys from their mothers and raising them together as a group. Although these monkeys showed some abnormal behavior as infants—they clung together practically all the time they were together in their cage—these infants developed into normal adolescent monkeys. Another study in which infants were raised with their mothers but without peer contact showed that mothering alone would not be adequate for normal development; some contact with peers appeared to be essential.

Although research has demonstrated no innate, fi xed pattern of caregiving, the contention that nurturing behavior has innate components has not disappeared. Instead, that notion

206 Emotion

has been transformed into the concept of attachment . John Bowlby (1951) originated this concept, which arose from his studies of infants raised in group homes. That situation often deprived them of some elements of care, including the opportunity to form a relationship with an adult (who is often—but not always—a woman). Young humans require a great deal of care, and understanding the mutual interaction of caregiver and infant is an important fac- tor in children’s survival and well-being (Hrdy, 1999, 2009). Attachment may have compo- nents that begin during pregnancy and extend for months or years, resulting in processes of mutual attachment between caregiver and child (Hofer, 2006). Attachment is not restricted to mother–infant attachment, but can also occur between fathers and infants, or with any other members of the extended family or community who happen to be present during the critical time period, but attachment to mothers occurs more often than with others. Infants for whom this process goes wrong are at risk.

The studies by Harlow and his colleagues demonstrated that maternal behavior is not the product of instinct in monkeys. Other research has confi rmed these fi ndings for other nonhuman primates (Smith, 2005), and additional research has demonstrated similar effects in rats (Melo et al., 2006). As Table 8.1 shows, nurturing and caregiving are not behaviors that appear in all females. Instead, specifi c social experiences are necessary for the develop- ment of adequate maternal (and other social) behaviors. Without these experiences, adequate maternal behaviors fail to appear.

Gender and Caring for Children Recent research has explored hormonal involvement in mothers’ preparation to nurture. During late pregnancy, delivery, and especially nursing, hormonal changes occur that may “prime” mothers to tend their babies (Mortimer, 2007; Rilling, 2013). These hormonal events are not suffi cient to prompt maternal behavior, even in rats, so the existence of bio- logical circumstances related to mothering is not the same as maternal instinct. Indeed, the investigation of attachment need not be limited to mothers and infants but extends to a variety of relationships (Hrdy, 2009; Woollett & Marshall, 2001). However, through cir- cumstance as well as physiology, women remain the primary caregivers for children in the great majority of cultures, whereas fathers’ involvement varies (Parke, 2002). In some species and in some human cultures, fathers have virtually no contact with their children, whereas in some species and other human cultures, fathers are primary caregivers. That involvement may also provoke hormonal changes; providing care to infants tends to decrease testosterone levels in these men (Rilling, 2013).

The circumstances of childbearing and nursing place many women in continued contact with children. Indeed, this association with caregiving is the basis for the classifi cation of women as more nurturant than men (Doucet, 2006). Possible explanations for gender- related differences in nurturing behavior include responsiveness to children and pleasure in

Table 8.1 Types of Deprivation and Effects on Nurturing in Monkeys

Type of Deprivation Adequacy of Nurturing

No deprivation—contact with mother and peers Normal

Complete isolation Inadequate and abusive

Wire or cloth “mother” Inadequate

Contact with mother only Inadequate

Contact with peers but not with mother Normal

Emotion 207

taking care of children. That is, perhaps girls and women respond more quickly and strongly to children or derive greater satisfaction from caring for children than men do, or both.

Gender differences in responsiveness to babies appear by age 3 (Blakemore, 1998) and increase throughout childhood (Melson, 2001). Many of the studies that have reported gender differences in responsiveness to babies relied on self-report measures that are subject to biases from expectation (Berman, 1980), but some studies have measured behavioral reactions. One study (Melson & Fogel, 1988) found that preschoolers’ interest in babies was similar before age 4, but with age, involvement with an infant in a play situation increased for girls and decreased for boys. In a naturalistic situation, girls showed more interest and nurturance toward babies than boys did, even at age 3 (Blakemore, 1998). This pattern was stronger for boys whose parents held traditional gender roles than for boys with more egalitarian parents. Therefore, parental and social encouragement is clearly a factor in respon- siveness to infants.

Girls’ responsiveness to babies may not refl ect a complete picture of nurturance. Boys tended to care for and nurture pets as they became less interested in babies (Melson, 2001). This behavior may represent the tendency for boys to become aware of the gender role they should follow, which does not include caring for babies. Boys still have the capacity to be nurturant caregivers, which they express by their feelings for and behavior toward pets. Boys may have the same capacity to nurture as girls but express it in different ways.

Women perform the vast majority of child care, which complicates comparisons of the pleasure that women and men derive from these activities. Although some fathers are involved in all aspects of child care, the accepted role for fathers is helper; moth- ers perform primary caregiving. Between 1965 and 2000 fathers in the United States approximately tripled the time they spend in child care (Wang & Bianchi, 2009), but the manner in which they interact with their children have remained much the same— fathers are playmates (Lafl amme, Pomerleau, & Malcuit, 2002). Thus, contrasts of the pleasure of nurturing experienced by mothers and fathers are not based on a direct comparison of the satisfaction each derives from specifi c caregiving activities, but rather on a comparison of their roles as mothers or fathers and the type of caregiving each provides. Within the context of these differences, men’s experience is more positive than women’s (Larson & Pleck, 1999). However, men have few models for being involved fathers (Maurer & Pleck, 2006) and feel the strain of trying to construct a fathering role in which they become the type of father they want to be, which often is at odds with their role as breadwinner and societal expectations for masculinity (Doucet, 2006; Silverstein, Auerbach, & Levant, 2002). Although societal approval for involved fathers has increased, the approval is not unanimous for fathers who perform the majority of caregiving for their children (Gaunt, 2013).

The time and effort mothers spend in child care lead to feelings of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Renk et al., 2003). The experience of involvement in parenting, coupled with their feelings on the social value of nurturing children, produce satisfaction; the loss of freedom and the irritation of attending to the demands of small children can lead to dissat- isfaction. In addition, many mothers held expectations that their partners would participate more fully in child care than they did, which led to feelings of being burdened. Indeed, the experience of greater negative emotionality among women is attributable to the presence of young children in the household (Simon & Nath, 2004).

Traditional gender roles are often enacted in child-care situations, but gay fathers experi- ence child care with the gender factor removed. The majority of gay fathers are men who have fathered children in heterosexual relationships. These men do not often get custody of their children, but an increasing number of gay couples are adopting or choosing sur- rogacy in order to become fathers (Giesler, 2012; Miller & Ramirez, 2009). These men are

208 Emotion

Gendered Voices : If Men Mothered

“I think that men could do as good as women at taking care of children,” two college students told me. Both the young man and the young woman said that they believed that women have no instinctive advantage in nurturing children. Both of them said that the dif- ferences were due to experience rather than inherent biological factors. Indeed, both said that they believed there were few differences in ability to care for children.

“Well, men can’t breast-feed,” the young man said, “but I think that is about the only advantage women have except for experience. They have a lot more experience in caring for children. Girls babysit, and boys don’t.” He knew how diffi cult it was for men to get experience caring for young children because he had attempted to obtain such experi- ence. He had volunteered to care for the young children in his church while their parents attended the service and had answered advertisements for babysitters. Neither of these efforts had met with enthusiasm from others; he had gotten the impression that want- ing to care for children was considered odd for a man. He considered the possibility that people might think he was a pedophile, when all he really wanted was to learn to be more nurturant.

“I think if men were responsible for caring for children, there would be more changes in men than in children. If men had to learn to care for children, then they would. It wouldn’t be automatic, because they don’t have the experience, but they could learn. I don’t believe in maternal instinct—that women have some innate advantage over men in caring. But women do have more experience, and men would have to learn the skills they lack.

“Men would learn to care for children if they had to, and they would become more nur- turant in other aspects of their lives, maybe even in their careers. They might not care so much about competition and high-status careers.”

The young woman had a slightly different view: “I think that the children would be dif- ferent. This opinion is based on my own family and the differences between my mother and my father. My father was more willing to let us be on our own, but my mother was more involved. My mother took care of us, but my father let us make our own decisions. Maybe that wouldn’t be good for young children, but I think I would have learned to be more self- reliant with my father’s style of caretaking. But maybe if he had been the one who had to look out for us, he would have been as protective as my mother was.”

highly motivated to become fathers, and they place a high value on relationships with their children. Without an automatic division of gender roles, gay fathers struggle with devising a “degendered” system of child care. They tend to divide child care more evenly than do heterosexual couples and to be more satisfi ed with this division of labor. Contrary to general beliefs, gay fathers are as able as heterosexual fathers to parent and to help their children develop (Armesto, 2002).

Studies of heterosexual (Combs-Orme & Renkert, 2009; Risman, 1989) and gay (Giesler, 2012) fathers who were major caregivers for their children revealed fathers whose feelings and behavior were similar to those of women who provided similar levels of care—satisfaction and frustration. Therefore, the greater pleasure that women derive from caring for children is likely a function of their greater involvement with their children, and men who have similar levels of involvement experience similar feelings.

Emotion 209

If no instinctive force compels women toward and men away from nurturing, why, then, have men been involved so little in caring for children? Powerful social forces operate to pre- vent fathers from becoming more intimately involved with their children. In industrialized societies, fathers hold the role of breadwinner, which usually takes them outside the home and away from their children’s lives (Maurer & Pleck, 2006). The traditional pattern of the male breadwinner who is a distant, uninvolved father has undergone changes over the past 40 years (Pleck & Pleck, 1997), but the well-publicized image of the “new” father who is involved with children’s upbringing is an overstatement for most families; mothers provide substantially more care than fathers do (Finley & Schwartz, 2008; Wood & Repetti, 2004). Men and women who hold traditional gender role ideologies tend to believe that child care is “women’s work,” which makes the men reluctant to participate and the women reluctant for their husbands to do so (Gaunt, 2013; Wood & Repetti, 2004).

Fathers are now more involved with their children than in past decades, and an increas- ing number of fathers feel motivated to be more intimately involved in their children’s lives (Cook, Jones, Dick, & Singh, 2005). For these men, few institutional supports exist to help them become more involved in child care, but many barriers prevent increased involvement (Doucet, 2006), especially for gay men who want to be fathers (Giesler, 2012). Their child- hood socialization tends to push them away from learning how to care for children, which leaves men feeling less capable of child-care tasks (Sanderson & Sanders Thompson, 2002). Being male in the world of young children makes some men feel as though they are moving through “estrogen-fi lled worlds,” which are unfamiliar territory (Doucet, 2006, p. 696). Nevertheless, research indicates that the children, mothers, and fathers all can benefi t from positive involvement by fathers in their children’s lives (Maurer & Pleck, 2006; Pleck, 1997).

The Prominence of Male Aggression

Aggression has also been attributed to instinct. This conceptualization includes gender dif- ferences, with explanations of an evolutionary advantage for male aggression (Dabbs, 2000). The standard version says that during human prehistory, while the women were at home caring for the children, the men were out hunting and defending the group against various threats. In both the hunting and the defending, aggressive actions were adaptive and even essential. Thus, women became passive homebodies and men became aggressive conquerors.

This view of human prehistory may be fi ctionalized, based more on the theorists’ personal views than on prehistoric human behavior. There have been questions about both the idea of female passivity and the notion of the adaptive advantage of aggression (Hrdy, 1981, 1999; Weisstein, 1982). Women in the hunter–gatherer societies of prehistory probably not only gathered plants for food but also participated in small-game (and perhaps even large-game) hunting, thus making them essential contributors to their groups’ food supply and far from passive. As for aggression, it can offer advantages if directed at the proper targets outside the group, but it can also be disruptive and dangerous within a group (de Waal, 2000). The men in these societies must have needed to become selectively rather than pervasively aggressive; natural selection would not favor those who were aggressive in all situations.

A defi nition of aggression turns out to be diffi cult to formulate in completely behavioral terms. The defi nition that human aggression is behavior directed toward another person intended to cause harm (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) relies on the intention of the aggres- sor and thus is not entirely behavioral. This diffi culty in defi nition is not confi ned to theo- rists and researchers; not all people agree on which behaviors should be included and which consequences of these behaviors constitute harm, but intention is important to people’s assessment of aggression (Krieglmeyer, Wittstadt, & Strack, 2009). Actions such as hitting, kicking, and biting obviously fi t into the defi nition of aggression, but aggression can cause

210 Emotion

not only physical but also psychological harm. The terms relational aggression and social aggression have been applied to behaviors that harm others through damage to personal relationships, such as sulking, group exclusion, or the “silent treatment.” Indirect aggression is a term applied to harm created through indirect means, such as arranging for someone to be blamed for a serious mistake at work or mocking someone’s actions (Bjorkqvist, 1994). Despite the difference in terminology, these concepts are similar (Archer & Coyne, 2005).

Anger and Aggression

Anger and aggression seem intimately related: Anger is the internal emotion; aggression is its behavioral reaction. However, the connection is not inevitable; a person can experience anger and take no action, aggressive or otherwise, but a person can also act aggressively without feeling anger, such as the careful planning of harm to another for personal benefi t (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).

Several types of investigations have explored people’s experience of anger and the con- nection to aggression in laboratory experiments, interviews, and surveys. Interviews and surveys have the advantage of tapping into personal experiences in ways that laboratory experiments cannot, but both have the disadvantage of relying on self-reports and lacking direct measurements of either anger or aggression. Several such studies have concentrated on children and their experience of anger. One study (Peterson & Biggs, 2001) asked 3-, 5-, and 8-year-old children about emotional situations, including anger. Five-year-old boys were most likely to label anger, and both girls and boys were more likely to label anger than any other emotion.

Similar to the fi ndings from studies with children, self-reports of anger in adults have revealed surprisingly few gender differences. Surveys of adults in eight European countries (Scherer, Wallbott, & Summerfi eld, 1986), in 37 nations around the world (Fischer et al., 2004), and community residents (Averill, 1982) and college students in the United States (Taylor & Risman, 2006) found no gender differences in the reported frequency of anger. An analysis of meta-analyses (Archer, 2004) confi rmed these fi ndings. The targets of anger, however, varied by gender and by relationship with the angry person. For example, women in countries with a great deal of gender inequality were more often angry with strangers than people with whom they had close relationships, but the pattern was the opposite for women in cultures with greater gender equality (Fischer et al., 2004). In general, women experienced more anger in more egalitarian societies, which is consistent with the notion that anger is an emotion of the powerful.

The tendency for women to cry when they feel angry appeared in the cross-cultural survey of emotion (Fischer et al., 2004), in a study of adolescents and emotional expression (San- tiago-Menendez & Campbell, 2013), and in a qualitative study in which women explored their emotions (Crawford, Kippax, Onxy, Gault, & Benton, 1992). In countries around the world, women cry more often than men (van Hemert, van de Vijver, & Vingerhoets, 2011). For women, crying is a common expression of emotion, even in response to anger. Girls are allowed to cry as an acceptable means of expressing anger, whereas physical aggression is less acceptable. However, crying is discouraged among boys, and men are much less likely to cry than women (Lombardo, Cretser, & Roesch, 2001). Indeed, men often misinterpret women’s crying as sadness or grief, which would be inappropriate in situations that provoke anger. This tendency for women to cry in situations in which men would not may be a major reason that women receive the label of “overemotional.”

Gender role rather than gender may have a stronger relationship with anger and the expression of anger. Masculinity (rather than being male) showed a relationship to the expression of anger and aggression, and femininity (rather than being female) was related

Emotion 211

to the suppression of anger (Kopper & Epperson, 1996). Masculinity was also important in men’s fear of emotion, with more masculine men showing greater fear of emotion (Jakupcak, Tull, & Roemer, 2005). Masculinity also related to higher levels of anger and to expression of hostility. Emotional skillfulness mediates the expression of aggression (Mansfi eld, Addis, Cordova, & Dowd, 2009). These studies show the importance of the traditional male gender role in anger and how anger becomes an accepted emotion for men, whereas other emotions are not.

In summary, the relationship between anger and aggression is far from automatic, with feelings of anger occurring far more often than acts of aggression. Of the studies that have explored gender differences in the experience of anger, few have confi rmed the stereotypes. Instead, these studies have shown that men and women both experience anger. Other studies have indicated that gender roles—more than gender—show a relationship to anger and emotion.

Developmental Gender Differences in Aggression

Understanding aggression during the early months and even early years of life is very diffi cult because what counts as aggression in an infant is virtually impossible to defi ne and observe. Researchers have observed various behaviors, beginning with children’s activity level during infancy. Some studies have failed to fi nd a gender difference in activity level, but Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) review concluded that boys showed higher activity levels than girls. Maccoby and Jacklin found little evidence for gender differences in aggression in early childhood, but an examination of peer interactions in children between 9 and 36 months old (Hay et al., 2011) showed that girls were more aggressive than boys initially. However, both used force in confl ict interactions, and boys’ aggression outpaced girls’ aggression by age 24 months. Studies during early childhood are most often based on observation, and observers tend to demonstrate gender biases in evaluating what counts as aggression in children (Ostrov, Crick, & Keating, 2005), which may be a biasing factor in these studies of early childhood. A review of meta-analyses on aggression came to the conclusion that gender differences in physical aggression appear early during childhood and persist throughout adulthood (Archer, 2004).

Another way to understand the development of aggression is through longitudinal research—in studies that test the same group of people over many years. Several longitudi- nal studies have focused on aggression, including early childhood in Canada (Baillargeon et al., 2007), childhood to preadolescence in Canada (Côté, Vaillancourt, LeBlanc, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2006), childhood to middle age in Finland and the United States (Kokko, Pulk- kinen, Huesmann, Dubow, & Boxer, 2009), and three generations of participants in the Columbia County Longitudinal Study in the United States (Dubow, Huesmann, & Boxer, 2003; Eron, 1987; Huesmann, Dubow, & Boxer, 2011; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1977). These studies employed mul- tiple methods of assessing aggression, including not only observation but also reports from the participants as well as from parents, teachers, and peers.

The results from all four longitudinal studies revealed several commonalities. First, aggres- sion tends to decrease over development; younger children show higher levels of aggression— especially physical aggression—than older children. This fi nding may seem counterintuitive; people appear to become more aggressive, especially as they reach adolescence, but this con- clusion is not correct. As they mature into middle childhood, children become increasingly capable of controlling their aggression, and most do so (Côté et al., 2006).

Second, some children exhibit a higher degree of aggression than other children, and these individuals exhibit a stable, high level of aggression from childhood to adulthood. This stability maintained for both boys and girls, but boys were more likely to be classifi ed

212 Emotion

in the group with the highest levels of aggression (Côté et al., 2006; Lefkowitz et al., 1977) and with more stable aggression from childhood to adulthood (Huesmann et al., 2011; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2005). These aggressive children tended to see themselves as aggres- sive, rated others as such, and saw the world as a dangerous place in which aggression was an appropriate response.

Third, parenting styles relate to the development of aggression in children. Parents who were less nurturant and harsher in their discipline tended to have children who behaved more aggressively than the children brought up by more nurturant and acceptant parents (Côté et al., 2006; Huesmann et al., 2011). Aggressive adults tend to use parenting strategies that create aggressive children, propagating a cycle of violence. Table 8.2 shows the stability of aggression among the participants in the Columbia County Longitudinal Study, the longest of the longitudinal studies.

A component of the Columbia County Longitudinal Study (Eron, Huesmann, Brice, Fischer, & Mermelstein, 1983) investigated the infl uence of watching violent television programs. The researchers found that the violence on television acted as an effective model for aggressive children. Indeed, the preference for violent television programs at age 8 was a good predictor of how aggressive the male adolescents would be at age 19. Two additional longitudinal studies demonstrated a relationship between preferences for violent television programs during childhood and aggression during adolescence (Boxer, Huesmann, Bush- man, O’Brien, & Moceri, 2009) and during young adulthood 15 years later (Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron, 2003). Those children who were most strongly infl uenced saw the TV violence as more realistic and also tended to identify with the aggressive televi- sion characters. Both boys and girls were subject to this infl uence.

From early in the lifespan, boys and men exhibit higher levels of physical aggression than girls and women, and these differences are higher during middle childhood and adolescence than during other ages (Archer, 2004). Girls exhibit opposition and defi ance of parents as often as boys do (Lahey et al., 2000), but they are less likely to fi ght. Boys also use higher levels of verbal aggression than girls, but girls and women exhibit similar or higher levels of social and indirect aggression (Archer, 2004). Between ages 2 and 8, some children replace the tendency for physi- cal aggression with indirect aggression (Côté, Vaillancourt, Barker, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2007).

Table 8.2 Aggression over the Lifespan

Children Identifi ed at 8 Years of Age by Their Peers as Aggressive toward Other Children

At Age 8 At Age 18 At Age 30

Had less nurturant and acceptant parents

Were still rated by peers as aggressive

Were more likely to have a criminal record

also also also

Preferred violent TV programs Rated themselves as aggressive Were more likely to abuse spouse

also also

Rated others as aggressive Were more likely to have DWI (DUI) conviction

also also

Saw the world as a dangerous place

Were more likely to have traffi c violations

also

Were more likely to use severe punishment with children

Emotion 213

The tactic of hurting others by ostracizing, excluding them from the group, and gossiping is especially prevalent among adolescent girls who exhibit high levels of aggression. Books such as Queen Bees and Wannabes (Wiseman, 2002) and the movie Mean Girls portrayed this age group and these tactics, but a meta-analysis (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008) found similar levels of indirect aggression among male and female children and adolescents. During adulthood, both men and women use indirect aggression, especially in the workplace, because physical aggression is obviously unacceptable in such situations (Archer, 2004).

Both boys and girls are discouraged from being physically aggressive, but they are not held to the same standards; boys are allowed to be more aggressive than girls—“boys will be boys.” By middle childhood, both boys and girls have developed different expectations about express- ing aggression (Anderson, 2005; Perry, Perry, & Weiss, 1989). Boys expected less parental disapproval for their aggression, and both expected less parental disapproval for aggression against a boy than against a girl. Even with general parental disapproval for aggression (Valles & Knutson, 2008), children learn about circumstances under which their aggression is more acceptable and more effective, and boys learn different rules for displaying aggression than girls learn—aggression is part of the male but not the female gender role. By adolescence, the gender differences in physical aggression are even larger than during childhood, and again, parental behavior is important. Parents monitored girls’ behavior more strictly than boy’s behavior (Carlo, Raffaelli, Laible, & Meyer, 1999), and this difference was a signifi cant mediating factor in the higher levels of aggression exhibited by boys.

Boys are more likely than girls to enact the most serious types of aggression (Archer, 2004). Some girls’ violence appears in the same range as the most aggressive boys, but a study of girls in gangs (Campbell, 1993) showed that high levels of male and female violence tended to serve different purposes. Men used aggression to exert control over others, whereas women’s aggression usually represented a loss of emotional self-control. This gender difference may apply to women and men in general and represent different meanings even for similar behav- iors (Alexander, Allen, Brooks, Cole, & Campbell, 2004). The violence in male gangs is consistent with this interpretation; boys in gangs used aggression and violence to gain social recognition and to get money. Girls in gangs also used violence to create recognition, but unlike boys, they did not seek money as much as they sought to avoid becoming victims by creating a reputation for being tough. As other research has indicated (Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2002), some groups allow and even encourage violence, and under some circumstances, aggression can have high benefi ts and low costs.

These gang girls represent an extreme, but their use of and benefi t from violence are con- sistent with the views in Young’s (2013) headline article about the benefi ts of anger—when chosen wisely and in consideration of a particular goal and situation, anger and aggression can offer advantages. For example, anger may be a healthier response than fear. People who reacted to a stressful situation with anger rather than fear tend to have a lower physiologi- cal response and a more optimistic outlook about the future than those whose emotional response was fear (Lerner, Dahl, Hariri, & Taylor, 2007).

A developmental trend occurs toward a decrease in aggression from middle childhood to young adulthood, and gender-related differences appear in the use of aggression. Boys and girls use different strategies and behaviors in their displays of aggression. Boys tend to use more confrontational, physical aggression as well as indirect aggression; girls tend to be less aggressive than boys, and their aggression is more likely to be indirect or rela- tional rather than physical and confrontational. Despite its lower frequency, aggression during adolescence and adulthood is more dangerous than childhood aggression. With their size, strength, and greater likelihood of owning a weapon, adolescent boys become more likely to use aggression that causes serious damage and violations of the law than are adolescent girls.

214 Emotion

Gender and Aggression during Adulthood

If gender-related differences in aggression decrease during development, then gender dif- ferences should be smaller during adulthood than earlier in development. Reviews of the experimental research on aggression have confi rmed these conclusions: The differences in aggression between men and women are not as large as most people imagine, but signifi cant differences exist in styles and circumstances.

Early reviews of gender and aggression evaluated large numbers of studies, but the tech- nique of meta-analysis has allowed a more systematic review of this massive research area. Indeed, a review of meta-analyses has appeared (Archer, 2004), providing an even more comprehensive picture of the fi ndings on this topic.

One early review (Frodi, Macaulay, & Thome, 1977) focused on laboratory studies and found small gender differences in aggression under controlled laboratory conditions. Indeed, when women were provoked or felt justifi ed, they became as aggressive as men. The factor of provocation was the topic of one meta-analysis (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996) that showed that gender differences decreased or disappeared with some types of provocation. For example, women do not as readily respond aggressively to insults to their intelligence as men do, but both respond similarly to the frustration of someone blocking their path in traffi c. This analysis suggested that some of the gender differences found in experimental research are due to the various provocations researchers have used. Table 8.3 summarizes

Table 8.3 Gender Differences in Situations That Provoke Anger and Aggression

For Children*

Type of Provocation Tendency toward Anger

Being hit accidentally Boys report more anger

Not being invited to a party Girls report more anger

For Adults**

Type of Provocation Tendency toward Aggression

No provocation Men respond with much more aggression in everyday contacts

Physical attack Men respond with slightly more aggression Men consider attacks more serious

Insults:

Insensitive behavior Women consider insults more serious

Condescending behavior Women respond with more aggression

Impolite treatment

Rude comments

Frustrations: Men respond with more aggression

Not able to succeed

Not able to fi nish task

Recognize own inability

Traffi c congestion

Negative feedback concerning intelligence Men respond with much more aggression Women are much less angered by this type of provocation

Sources: *Data from “Self-Reported Differences in the Experience and Expression of Anger between Boys and Girls,” by Roberta L. Buntaine and Virginia K. Costenbader, 1997, Sex Roles, 36, pp. 625–637. **Data from “Gender Differences in Aggression as a Function of Provocation: A Meta-analysis,” by Ann Bettencourt and Norman Miller, 1996, Psychological Bulletin, 119, pp. 422–447.

Emotion 215

some gender-related differences in tendencies to respond with anger and aggression for both children and adults.

When the defi nition of aggression includes the infl iction of psychological or social harm, women may be as aggressive or more aggressive than men (Archer, 2004; Card et al., 2008). These situations are more common among adults than those involving physical aggression (Bjorkqvist, 1994), so this type of aggression is important. Although not without the danger of retaliation, relational and indirect aggressions are less risky than physical confrontation, making it a less dangerous choice, especially for women. The focus on physical aggression is the major reason that research has shown men to be more aggressive than women. With more comprehensive defi nitions of aggression and in more naturalistic situations, gender differences become smaller (Richardson, 2005).

Aggression can be a very effective way of exerting power and forcing others to behave according to one’s wishes (Cassidy & Stevenson, 2005; Hawley & Vaughn, 2003). When considering aggression as a method of exerting power, women may be reasonably concerned about the potential for reprisal; the size and strength differential between men and women makes women vulnerable. Indeed, women’s reluctance to use physical aggression may relate to their fear of retaliation. Men’s tendency to use physical aggression may relate to their size advantage, training, and experiences (Sell, Hone, & Pound, 2012) and to their belief in its effectiveness as a control strategy (Campbell & Muncer, 2008). In addition, the com- patibility of aggression with the male gender role makes aggression a way to demonstrate masculinity (Anderson, 2005).

The concept of demonstrating masculinity is consistent with the reports of different experiences of aggression for women and men (Graham & Wells, 2001). A random sample of Canadian women and men reported their last experience of physical aggres- sion, and results revealed that men were more likely than women to report involvement in some sort of violence. For men, the most common report was a fi ght with another man, usually in a public place such as a bar, with men as the more common perpetrators and the more common victims of violence. For women, the most common report was a confl ict with a male partner or friend, many of which fi t the description of intimate partner violence. Women also perpetrate physical violence, but the context is often in private settings and directed toward partners or children (Caldwell, Swan, Allen, & Sul- livan, 2009; Richardson, 2005).

The dynamics of partner confl icts and the escalation to violence are complex (Eisikovits, Winstok, & Gelles, 2002; Straus, 2009; Winstok, Eisikovits, & Gelles, 2002). Studies of partner violence indicate that women initiate violence as often as men, but the outcome is not equal; women are much more likely to sustain serious injuries or to be killed in such encounters (Richardson, 2005; Straus, 2009). The context of violence makes a great deal of difference to its recognition in terms of crime statistics. Domestic violence is less likely than public violence to result in arrest, so women who commit violent acts in private are not as likely as men to be involved in the criminal justice system.

Gender and Crime

Despite fairly small gender difference in aggression, the statistics on societal aggression reveal large differences. Men commit many more criminal acts than women do, and their arrest and incarceration rates are much higher. According to the statistics for the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2014), men are about 4 times more likely than women to be arrested for various types of offenses, such as murder, robbery, van- dalism, fraud, and drunkenness. Although not all of these violations involve violence, many do; as Figure 8.2 shows, such offenses are more likely to be committed by men

216 Emotion

Gendered Voices—He Said/She Said: Intimate Partner Violence

Two studies (Eisikovits et al., 2002*; Winstok et al., 2002*) reported on men who had beaten their partners and women who had stayed with their abusive partners. The men’s stories refl ected their beliefs that they were provoked into violence and refl ected how they felt justifi ed in hitting their partners.

He said: “She starts making those faces and talking ugly, and this is expressed in a million ways.

‘You make yourself coffee, I won’t do it for you.’ So after I hit her, she becomes a real disci- plined child, just like I used to like her. After a month or two, slowly, slowly, she becomes self-confi dent again and gets out of line” (Winstok et al., 2002, p. 136).

“I am unable to beat her to death. I give her a slap and that’s all, no more than that. Just to deter her. Stop it and that’s it. She’s getting just what she deserves, no more, sometimes less, but never more” (Winstok et al., 2002, p. 135).

These abusive men told stories about trying to silence their partners’ voices. The women’s stories refl ect a different view of these violent situations. Some abused

women told stories about how uncontrollable and unpredictable their partners’ vio- lence was.

She said: “Most of the time everything is OK. But sometimes we’re sitting talking about something

and the argument starts. From the argument . . . he . . . erupts just like a volcano, he raises his voice, and then I say something, and then he raises his voice some more and then I do too. . . . And we’re screaming and arguing and not listening to each other. And it goes wherever it goes” (Eisikovits et al., 2002, p. 142).

Other women told about how they recognized and managed their partners’ escalation of violence.

She said: “I prefer not to answer him at all, because I know that if I answer back it’ll only get worse.

Slowly I understood that if I shut up his anger would be less than if I answer him back” (Eisikovits et al., 2002, p. 142).

These abused women told stories about how their abusers silenced their voices.

*Reprinted with permission from Families in Society (www.familiesinsociety.org), published by the Alliance for Strong Families and Communities.

than by women. However, increases in violent crimes committed by girls and women have occurred in more categories of crime over the past 15 years than for boys and men (FBI, 2014).

Not all crimes result in arrest, and the possibility exists that the ratio of crimes committed by men and women is closer to equal than the arrest rates suggest. Indeed, violent acts per- formed by women are evaluated differently than similar behavior by men (Anderson, 2005). However, surveys have indicated that although the reported rates of crime exceed the arrest rates, men still outnumber women in committing crimes (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996).

Emotion 217

Crime was so strongly associated with men before the 1970s that most criminologists and offi cials in the criminal justice system assumed that crime was an almost exclusively male problem.

Prompted by the increase of criminal activity among women during the 1970s, research interests turned to female offenders. One hypothesis about this increase focused on the women’s movement—equal opportunity applied to crime—but research indicated that female offenders tended to be traditional rather than feminist in their beliefs. In addition, the increase in crimes committed by women has been attributed more to nonviolent rather than violent crimes (Small, 2000). Therefore, the gender difference in violent crime persists, and the role of gender in criminal behavior and in treatment by the justice system remains unclear (Goodkind, Wallace, Shook, Bachman, & O’Malley, 2009).

Not only are men more likely to commit acts of violence, but they are also more likely than women to be the victims of crime (see According to the Media and According to the Research). Boys are much more likely than girls to use confrontation and aggression as strategies for managing confl ict, making male-against-male violence a common occurrence and physical aggression between boys and girls less common. Despite their lower rate of

Figure 8.2 Percentage of Male and Female Offenders Arrested for Various Offenses

Source: Data from “Crime in the United States 2013,” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Table 42. Retrieved October 24, 2015, from www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-42/table_42_arrests_ by_sex_2013.xls

P er

ce nt

ag e

A rr

es te

d

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 Men Women

M urder

R ape

R obbery

A ggravated A

ssault

B urglary

Larceny, T heft

A rson

F orgery

E m

bezzlem ent

V andalism

P rostitution

D rug V

iolation

D om

estic V iolence

D runkenness

D V

I

C urfew

V iolation

D isorderly C

onduct

A ll A

rrests

88.3

11.7

98.1

1.9

86.6

13.4

77

23

83

17

56.9

43.1

80.3

19.7

62.6

37.4

79.7

20.3

32.8

67.2

51.6 48.4

78.9

21.1

75.3

26.7

81.3

18.7

75.1

24.9

71.7

28.3

72.1

27.9

73.5

26.5

218 Emotion

victimization, women are more likely than men to fear being the victims of crime. Early research indicated large differences, but later research (Schafer, Huebner, & Bynum, 2006) has revealed than men also fear crime victimization. Men, however, have a greater fear of being the victim of property crime. For women, the fear of sexual assault overwhelms fear of other crimes (Lane, Gover, & Dahod, 2009). Women are not the only ones who experi- ence this fear; both men and women experience concern for the safety of their female part- ners (Drakulich & Rose, 2013). These concerns are not entirely unrealistic; sexual violence toward women is common.

According to the Media . . . Women are Stalked by Crazed Killers and Queen Bees

Since the 1970s, the “slasher” fi lm has undergone several waves of popularity and continues to capture large audiences, especially among adolescents (“Horror Show”, 2006). The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was one of the early fi lms of this genre and exemplifi ed many of the common elements of slasher movies, including a maniac killer with frightening weapons stalking young women. In these movies, young women (often dressed very scantily) run screaming with fear, only to be pursued, caught, and killed. Some fi lms showed the action of stalking through the eyes of the slasher, who was always a man. Thus, slasher movies portray young female victims terrorized and then killed by men more often than other genres of fi lm (Sapolsky, Molitor, & Luque, 2003).

During the 1990s, a version of slasher movies appeared that differed from those in the 1970s and 1980s. In these slasher movies—usually sequels to earlier movies— a lone woman survives the carnage (King, 2005; Trencansky, 2001). Although this survivor is a woman, other women and men are dead, and any remaining men are completely ineffective in stopping the killing. The woman manages to overcome the menacing murderer and seeks vengeance. These “Final Girls” are strong, resourceful, and capable—that is, they adopt masculine values and behavior rather than cower in terror waiting to be slaughtered (Keisner, 2008).

Some movies portray women as menacing and even as killers—“mean girls mov- ies,” such as The Craft , Foxfi re , and Jawbreaker (King, 2005) and “crazy chick fl icks” such as Black Swan , The Roommate , and Fatal Attraction (Setoodeh, 2011). These movies feature competition, aggression, or both among girls or women. In the “mean girls” movies, the emphasis is on relational aggression, with mean girls tormenting the main character, who fi nally triumphs (often through more aggression). The “crazy chick fl icks” feature a variety of violence by unstable women directed toward men and women, but the crazy woman does not triumph—she succumbs either to violence or her own psychopathology. These movies actually feature higher levels of violence toward women than slasher movies. Thus from crazed killers to crazy chicks, girls and women are the targets of movie violence.

Emotion 219

Sexual Violence

Although women’s fears of sexual violence have some basis, the sexual assault they fear is not the most common that women experience—women fear stranger rape when sexual violence from acquaintances and intimates is a more common experience (Planty, Langton, Berzofsky, & Smiley-McDonald, 2013). Based on reported cases, only about 22% of rapes and attempted rapes are by strangers. In addition, rape often goes unreported, making the offi cial estimates lower than actual occurrences.

A classic study of U.S. college students (Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987) clarifi ed the rate of sexual violence. Asking both men and women about their sexual behaviors revealed that 15.4% of the women reported being raped since the age of 14, and another 12.1% reported experiences that met the legal criteria for attempted rape. These rates yielded esti- mates for rape that were 10 to 15 times greater than the arrest rates for this crime, as well as perpetration rates that were 2 to 3 times higher than offi cial estimates for the risk of rape, suggesting that many rapes go unreported. The fi ndings from this study provoked contro- versy, but subsequent research has confi rmed these fi gures. Sexual coercion and violence are common experiences, and most incidents go unreported.

According to the Research . . . Men Are More Often the Victims of Violent Crime, and Women Are Most Often Killed by Intimate Partners

In slasher movies, women are the ones who are stalked and killed by men, but most murderers are male (FBI, 2014). Men are also more likely than women to be the vic- tims of such crimes. Indeed, men are more involved in almost all types of crimes than women are, but especially violent crime. These statistics make the movie image of the maniac killer stalking beautiful young women inaccurate in several ways.

First, most people who commit murder kill people whom they know well, rather than people whom they do not know or know only slightly. This pattern is more typical of female than male murder victims. Second, most people with psychologi- cal problems are not violent. Of those people who are violent and have psychologi- cal problems, most commit crimes that lead to their prompt arrest, giving them no opportunity to continue with a series of killings. Indeed, serial and mass murder are much more common in the movies than in real life. Third, young women are not the most typical victims of violence; young African American men are disproportionately the victims of violence in the United States (FBI, 2014).

When women are the victims of violence, crazed killers are rarely the perpetra- tors. Instead, husbands and boyfriends are more likely to be the ones who harm women. Women are more likely to be assaulted or killed by men whom they love than by strangers (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999). Therefore, the portrayal of deranged, menacing stalkers with female victims is not how most real-world violence occurs, nor is the image of the female hero who prevails over menacing criminals accurate. For most female and male victims, violence has a familiar male face.

Girls and women cause harm to others, but the situations vary from those por- trayed in movies with mean girls or crazy women. These fi lms present women enact- ing a high level of physical violence, whereas women’s aggression tends to take the form of relational and indirect aggression (Archer, 2004). Thus, the movie depictions of women as victims and women as perpetrators are both inaccurate.

220 Emotion

Not only does rape go unreported to legal authorities, many women are reluctant to tell anyone about being raped. Although this reluctance is common, women from some ethnic backgrounds are more reluctant than others. Despite a similarity in the numbers of attempted and completed rapes for African American and European American women, African American women are signifi cantly less likely to tell anyone about being raped (Don- ovan & Williams, 2002). Women from both ethnic groups had diffi culty in identifying attacks by their acquaintances as “real” rape.

Asian Americans hold more negative attitudes toward women as rape victims than Euro- pean Americans do (Lee, Pomeroy, Yoo, & Rheinboldt, 2005), especially fi rst-generation Asian Americans (Devdas & Rubin, 2007). Both Asian American men and women were more likely than European Americans to endorse rape myths, such as the myth that rape is the woman’s fault and that most rapes are stranger rape (Lee et al., 2005). Asian American men had more negative attitudes about women than any other group, so Asian American women’s acceptance of blame for rape may make them particularly unlikely to report this crime.

Rape invokes a stigma for two reasons: (1) the sexual nature of the crime and (2) the tendency to blame the victim. The stigma is even more severe when men are the victims (Doherty & Anderson, 2004), resulting in men being even less likely to report the offense than women (Sable, Danis, Mauzy, & Gallagher, 2006). Male victims of rape or other types of sexual coercion have been accorded much less attention than have female victims, partly because they are not victimized as often, and partly because of the diffi culty of accepting that men can be raped (Chapleau, Oswald, & Russell, 2008; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman- Johnson, 1994). This diffi culty applies to victimized men because men tend to blame victims more than women do (Schneider, Mori, Lambert, & Wong, 2009) and because their mascu- line self-identity is threatened by their victimization (Pino & Meier, 1999).

Despite the barriers to recognizing the situation, a growing body of research indicates that men are sexually coerced and victimized by women as well as by men in ways similar to women’s experience of coercion: through bribery, threats of withdrawal of affection, intoxi- cation, physical intimidation, physical restraint, and physical harm (Fisher & Pina, 2013; Krahé, Scheinberger-Olwig, & Bieneck, 2003). Both men and women are victims of sexual coercion, and both are censured for being victimized (Sable et al., 2006). The 9:1 ratio of female to male victimization makes women’s victimization a more urgent problem (Planty et al., 2013). In addition, women are more traumatized by coercive sexual experiences than men are (Rickert, Vaughan, & Wiemann, 2003). Therefore, a great deal of research has con- centrated on understanding the characteristics of men who rape and coerce women into sex.

Diana Scully (1990) conducted extensive interviews on convicted rapists and explored some of their motivation and attitudes. Her results revealed that the rapists had not experienced an unusually high level of treatment for psychopathology or an unusually high rate of childhood physical or sexual abuse. Their family histories were fi lled with instability and violence, but at rates comparable to other felons in the study. The rapists were able to form relationships with women, but their attitudes toward women showed a combination of beliefs: Women belong “on a pedestal” and men have the right to treat women with violence. Many of these rapists told Scully that they planned their actions because they were angry with their wives or girlfriends and wanted to do violence to some woman. These men reported that the common character- istic of their victims was their vulnerability; they were in the right place at the wrong time— usually alone somewhere at night. Their physical appearance made no difference—many of the rapists had trouble describing their victims. This disregard for appearance highlights the violence of the act and argues against a sexual motive for this type of rape.

Scully’s sample underrepresented rapists who were acquainted with their victims; acquain- tance rape is less often reported and prosecuted, and convictions are less likely than for stranger rape. The violent attack by a stranger is the vision of rape that women fear, yet the most common experience of rape is an attack by an acquaintance, termed date rape

Emotion 221

or acquaintance rape . One survey of rape and attempted rape (Koss et al., 1987) included questions that allowed participants to estimate their involvement in various types of sexual coercion. A total of 54% of the women in the survey reported some type of forced or coerced sexual activity, but only 25% of the men in the survey admitted to some level of sexual aggression. The discrepancy in the rates for men and women is not due to a few sexually predatory men, but rather to some degree of denial or failure by many men to recognize their own sexual aggression. This failure to recognize sexual aggression also occurred among the convicted rapists in Scully’s study and in a study with a representative sample of U.S. residents (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). All of these researchers have found that men may have trouble recognizing their own behavior as sexually coercive.

Neil Malamuth and his colleagues (in Malamuth, 1996) have worked toward developing a model to predict sexual aggression. Drawing from the fi elds of evolutionary psychology and femi- nist scholarship, Malamuth proposed that the convergence of two factors relate to rape: (1) high levels of uncommitted, impersonal sex and (2) hostile masculinity—hostility toward and desire to dominate women. When combined, these two factors relate to men’s use of sexual coercion. Fig- ure 8.3 presents this model and the paths leading toward coercive sexuality. Malamuth’s research team has conducted several studies that support the model and its ability to predict coercive tac- tics to obtain sex, and research with Asian American and European American men (Hall, Teten, DeGarmo, Sue, & Stephens, 2005) has also confi rmed this model. Malamuth and colleagues (Malamuth, Hald, & Koss, 2012) have added pornography use as a risk factor in this model; men who consume a great deal of pornography are at increased risk to use sexual aggression.

Figure 8.3 Model of Characteristics of Men Who Are Coercive against Women

Adapted from Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, and Tanaka, “The characteristic of aggression against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, p. 676. Adapted by permission of Neil Malamuth and the American Psychological Association

222 Emotion

Additional research has identifi ed attitudes that support sexual violence directed at women. A sense of entitlement was one such factor (Hill & Fischer, 2001; Ryan, 2004). That is, men who feel that they are entitled to have sex, even if women refuse, are more likely to be sexu- ally aggressive. In addition, both men and women make excuses and rationalizations for men’s sexual aggression (Weiss, 2009), which allows this unacceptable behavior to continue.

In summary, male aggression is not a myth, but the notion that men are aggressive and women are passive is not true. Both genders experience similar levels of anger, but men are more likely to express their anger as physical aggression. This likelihood can be traced to different social expectations and reinforcements for aggression experienced by boys and girls. As adults, men are more likely to be violent in public, to use aggression to gain power over others, and to experience legal problems associated with their aggression. Women are more likely to be violent in private, to use indirect or social aggression, and to respond violently if they feel justifi ed in doing so and protected from retaliation. These patterns of aggression show gender-related differences, but they do not suggest that aggression is a male instinct or even a male domain.

Expressivity and Emotion

Men and women experience similar emotions but different behaviors, so might the differences be attributable to the ways that each expresses emotion? Men tend to hold negative attitudes about emotional expression (Jakupcak et al., 2005; Wong, Pituch, & Rochlen, 2006), and women reported that they express their emotions more freely than men (Simon & Nath, 2004).

The notion of large gender differences in emotional expression is possible only by using a selective defi nition of what counts as emotion (Shields, 2002). By concentrating on the emotions of fear and sadness in women and by overlooking aggression in men, women could be considered more expressive than men. This difference in expressivity can be explained by differences in display rules: Men and women are supposed to restrain displays of certain emo- tions, yet are free to show others. This selectivity reinforces gender stereotyping of emotions.

In his discussion of compliance with the Male Gender Role Identity model, Robert Bran- non (1976) listed four criteria, two of which relate to these gender differences in emotionality: (1) No Sissy Stuff, meaning men must avoid anything vaguely feminine, such as crying or fear; (2) Give ’Em Hell, meaning men are proud to display anger and aggression. (See Chapter 3 for a discussion of all four components.) The stereotype holds that men must avoid all things feminine and women are emotional; thus, the display of most emotion is prohibited. Anger is acceptable, however, because it is the essence of “giving ’em hell.” These two components are essential elements of the display rules for men, which allow women to express more of what they feel, with the penalty of being stereotyped for their display (Shields, 2002). A study about men’s and women’s expression of emotion in the workplace showed that women constrained their expressions of anger at work (Sloan, 2012). If they do not and express their emotion through crying, they become “emotional women” (Fischer, Eagly, & Oosterwijk, 2013). A meta-analysis of studies on emotion among children from infancy to adolescence (Chaplin & Aldao, 2013) confi rmed some stereotypical expression of emotion for girls and boys but also that most differences were small and that situation and age moderated those gender effects in expressing emotion. Figure 8.4 illustrates some of these differences.

Psychologists have used self-reports, observed behavior, and physical arousal to assess emo- tion. When researchers have used participants’ self-reports to measure emotion, they often fi nd that women are more emotional than men. For example, one review of self-reports of emotionality (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) showed that girls and women were more likely than boys and men to admit to feelings of fear and anxiety. When researchers have used observations of participants’ behavior in public, they have measured the enactment of display

Emotion 223

rules and the potential bias of observers, who may be infl uenced by the stereotypes govern- ing emotion. Such studies tend to fi nd gender differences (Eagly & Steffen, 1986). When researchers unobtrusively measure behavior in private, and such studies often fail to show gender differences (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983).

Overall emotionality

Positive composite

Negative composite

Interest Joy at another’s

expense

Pride

Disgust

Embarrassment

Contempt

Anger

Sympathy

Shame

Anxiety

Fear

Sadness

Other positive

Surprise

Happiness

Medium to small effects

-1.00 -.75 -.5 -.25 0 +1.00+75+.5+.25

Large effects

Girl’s Expression is Higher Boy’s Expression is Higher

-.05

-.03

-.15

-.06

-.10

-.01

-.56

-.13

-.26

-.19

-.16

-.03

-.08

+.29

+.42

-.01

+.10

-.12

Figure 8.4 Gender and Children’s Emotion Expression

Source: Adapted from “Gender Differences in Emotion Expression in Children: A Meta-Analytic Review,” by T. M. Chaplin and A. Aldao, 2013, Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), p. 750.

Gendered Voices — They Put a Lot of Effort into Showing Nothing

I talked to a psychologist who had been employed as a therapist in a prison, and he told me that the prisoners exhibited what he considered to be an inappropriate level of emotion— none. He said, “I thought they put a lot of effort into showing no emotion. Their goal seemed to be to show no sign of any emotion. For example, even if they were hurt, their faces didn’t change expression. Every once in a while, I would see a slip, and a prisoner would show some sign of pain when he got hurt. I assume that they had feelings that were similar to anyone’s, but their expression of emotion was very abnormal.

“Showing no emotion didn’t mean that they let things go. They would retaliate against another prisoner who had hurt them, even if it was mostly an accident and he hadn’t meant to hurt anyone. But they didn’t show any emotion when they were hurt or when they hurt the other guy. It was part of the prison society to keep their faces like masks, showing noth- ing about what they felt, closing themselves off from the others.”

224 Emotion

Women learn a slightly different set of display rules for emotion than men do, and the behavior of both men and women tends to conform to their display rules. Thus, women should be more nurturant than men, and in self-reports and in public behavior, they are. Boys and men should not be interested in babies or responsive to them, and under some circumstances, they are not. However, boys tend to nurture pets, and men who care for children may be as nurturant and responsive as women who perform these tasks. According to these display rules, men should be more physically aggressive than women, and in self-reports and in public behav- ior (including criminal violence), they are. However, women experience anger as strongly as men do, and when they feel justifi ed (and anonymous), women are as likely to show physical aggression similarly to men. Relational and indirect aggressions involve doing harm indirectly, and women exhibit this type of aggression, sometimes more than men. Therefore, the gender differences in emotion are infl uenced by gender stereotypes, situational factors, and the social learning of display rules, not a biologically determined instinct for male aggression.

Considering Diversity

Research on diversity and emotion has tended to focus on the universals of emotion rather than on cross-cultural differences, but one study that examined ethnic groups within the United States (Durik et al., 2006) found both differences and similarities. African American, Hispanic Americans, and European American participants all held gendered stereotypes of emotions, but European Americans’ views were more gender polarized than the other groups, and gender often interacted with ethnicity. These results present a complex picture of the infl uences of gender, culture, and emotion.

A major approach to understanding the basics of human emotions and the commonali- ties across cultures has emphasized facial expressions as a refl ection of emotional experience. Paul Ekman (1984, 1992), who is the leading proponent of this position, has traced his view back to Darwin and the notion that facial expressions refl ect basic emotional experiences for humans and nonhuman animals. People’s conceptualizations of emotion are consistent with this view—people classify some emotions as basic and agree that both humans and nonhu- man animals experience these basic emotions (Demoulin et al., 2004). Ekman’s research led him to propose that at least six basic human emotions exist—happiness, surprise, fear, sadness, anger, and disgust combined with contempt.

The quest for universals has not been completely successful; a recent review (Nelson & Russell, 2013) concluded that people across the world do not consistently identify the emotions Ekman claimed were universal. The search for universals has yielded fi ndings of some commonalities but also a great deal of diversity across cultures (Eid & Diener, 2009; Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). One important factor many researchers have considered is the dimension of collectivist versus individualist cultures. Collectivist cultures emphasize group values, the family, and group harmony, which require subordinating the self to the group. Individualist cultures value indi- vidual achievement, personal goals, and development of the self. Countries such as the United States, Canada, the countries in Northern Europe, and Australia are individualist cultures, and those such as China, Japan, Korea, countries in Latin America, and many countries in Africa are collectivist. One study that explored differences in collectivist and individualist countries confi rmed that people in individualist countries (United States and Australia) experienced more pride, whereas those in collectivist cultures (China and Taiwan) felt more guilt (Eid & Diener, 2001). An extension of this research to collectivist cultures in Africa (Kim-Prieto & Eid, 2004) revealed that guilt was valued in the more collectivist cultures, but pride and contentment were more highly valued in collectivist cultures in Africa than in Asia. Both culture and gender infl uenced the regulation of emotion in China and the United States (Davis et al., 2012). Thus, cultural variations appear, even within the classifi cation of collectivist and individualist cultures.

Emotion 225

Some cross-cultural research (Scherer et al., 1986) included gender comparisons and revealed the expected stereotypical gender differences—women reported more expressions of emotion than men—but the differences were small. This survey also revealed some evi- dence against the emotional stereotypes associated with various countries: The English were very talkative rather than reticent, the Italians were very concerned with achievement rather than personal relationships, and the Swiss were very emotional rather than very reserved.

Some surprising differences appear in studies of anger, which is one of the “basic” emo- tions. The acceptability of anger differs substantially across cultures, and the association of anger with masculinity is not universal. For the Utku Eskimos, anger brings shame; it is considered dangerous, and its display is completely unacceptable for adults; children learn to avoid this emotion. The Vanatinai also believe that anger and aggression are unacceptable (Lepowsky, 1994). The inhabitants of this small island society in the South Pacifi c near New Guinea value independence and assertiveness but fi nd physical aggression shameful; adults who commit such acts are thought to be out of control and embarrassing to their families. Fighting is rare, but women are somewhat more likely than men to be physically aggressive. However, women are not allowed to participate in warfare or use spears. This society holds different display rules from Western societies, placing women rather than men in the role of displaying aggression.

The cross-cultural search for emotional universals has yielded fi ndings about similari- ties across cultures—the types, the antecedent situations, the labels used, and the physical reactions and facial responses people exhibit (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). However, when considering which emotions are valued and acceptable, large cultural differences exist. For example, emotions associated with power, such as anger and contempt, were less acceptable to Japanese participants than to participants in Canada or the United States (Safdar et al., 2009). In addition, the situations that prompt emotion and the contexts in which displays of emotion are appropriate show very large cultural differences. Cultures vary both in restricting and in prescribing the display of emotion—who should express what emotion under what circumstances: “Although there are universal patterns of expressive behavior, there also are culture-specifi c behavior modes, deriving from culture-specifi c models and from culturally based expectations regarding behavior that is appropriate under particular circumstances” (Mesquita & Frijda, 1992, p. 199). People may all feel the same emotions, but they do not express them in the same ways or under the same circumstances.

Summary

The stereotype of gender and emotion presents women as emotional and men as rational, but research on the different components of emotion has revealed that there may be few gender differences in the inner experience of emotion. Gender differences stem from how and when emotion is displayed.

The notion that some emotions are the result of instincts can be traced to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. In psychology, the explanation that emotion is instinctive has faded, with the exception of beliefs about a maternal instinct and an instinct toward aggression. Belief in a maternal instinct has continued, although research by Harlow and his colleagues demonstrated that experience was critical in developing adequate maternal behaviors— monkeys deprived of contact with other monkeys during the fi rst 6 months of their lives failed to show adequate nurturing and caregiving. Attachment is a concept related to mater- nal instinct but does not necessarily rely on instinct as its basis and allows for attachments between infants and others (rather than only mothers).

Gender differences in responsiveness to babies appear in studies with self-reports and in public displays, which are consistent with gender stereotypes. Boys are free to express

226 Emotion

their nurturance to pets, and they do. Women still have a great deal more involvement in child care than men. Self-reports indicate that the greater pleasure for women in caring for children is coupled with greater irritation in caring for them; however, men who are very involved in child care tend to report similar feelings. Although fathering has not included the type of intimate caregiving that mothering has, research indicates that fathers have increased their involvement with their children, demonstrating their interest and ability in nurturing. Therefore, the concept of maternal instinct has no support as a biologically based explanation for caregiving. Both men and women share similar emotions related to nurturing.

Aggression has also been nominated as an instinct, with the belief that men have more innate tendencies toward aggressive behavior than women. When considering the link between anger and aggression—that is, between emotion and behavior—few gender dif- ferences appear. Women and men experience anger similarly but express it differently. Boys and men tend to be more likely to use physical confrontation when they are angry, whereas girls and women are more reluctant to express anger. When they do, they tend to use more indirect and relational aggression. Girls and women are more likely to cry when angry, an expression that men often misunderstand and fi nd inappropriate.

Developmental gender differences in aggression exist, with boys more likely than girls to use physical aggression at all ages. Longitudinal studies have revealed that aggression is moderately stable over time and even over generations; aggressive children are more likely to become violent adults and to have children who are more aggressive. However, both boys and girls tend to become less aggressive as they develop, and by adulthood, the gender dif- ference in aggression has diminished.

Despite small gender differences in aggression in laboratory studies, very large gender dif- ferences exist in crime rates: Men are about 4 times more likely than women to be arrested for committing violent crimes. The victims of these violent crimes are likely to be other men, but women fear crime victimization more than men, especially sexual violence. Their fear has some basis. Offi cial reports underestimate the incidence of rape, and more representative surveys show that at least 20% of women are the targets or rape or attempted rape. Attitudes of hostility toward women, an acceptance of violence, heavy use of pornography, and a sense of entitlement to sex make men more likely to be sexually violent.

Although men have more experience with violence and less experience with nurturance than women, these differences relate more strongly to how emotion is expressed than to women’s or men’s subjective experiences of emotion. The cultural display rules that govern the behaviors associated with emotion differ for men and women, and these allow women more expression and restrain men from expressing emotions except anger, which men are more free to show than are women.

The search for universals in emotion has yielded evidence of both consistency and diversity across cultures. Research indicates that people across the world experience the same range of emotions, including the six basic emotions of happiness, surprise, fear, sadness, anger, and disgust combined with contempt. However, the situations that evoke these emotions and the rules that govern their display differ enormously across cultures. In addition, culture and gender interact in complex ways.

Glossary

attachment an intimate relationship that forms between a caregiver (almost always a mother) and an infant.

display rules learned social rules that govern who may display which emotion to whom, and in what situation each emotion may be displayed.

Emotion 227

Suggested Readings

Fuentes, Agustín. (2012). Race, monogamy, and other lies they told you: Busting myths about human nature . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Fuentes’s book concentrates on cultivating the critical thinking that allows individuals to examine popular

myths about human behavior. Chapter 5 focuses on the myth of aggression.

Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. (2009). Mothers & others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Primatologist Hrdy examines mothers and the others who care for (and are necessary to) developing primates.

She uses nonhuman species to provide contrasts and to draw similarities to the complexities of bearing and rais- ing children.

Larson, Reed; & Pleck, Joseph. (1999). Hidden feelings: Emotionality in boys and men. In Dan Bernstein (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1999: Gender and motivation (pp. 25–74). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Larson and Pleck review theories of emotion and present results from several studies that compare emotional

responses of girls, boys, women, and men in a variety of situations. Their gender-as-process approach and innova- tive methodology provide an interesting presentation of gender and emotionality.

Shields, Stephanie A. (2002). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social meaning of emotion . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shields reviews research related to how emotion fi ts into social conceptualizations of gender and how emo-

tional meaning is often sharply gendered.

Suggested Websites

Fathering Magazine is an e-zine (electronic magazine) devoted to men’s family issues (http://www.father mag.com/). It has two editions; one includes articles oriented toward being a good, involved father, and the other focuses on divorce, custody, and child support issues. Both editions express quite a bit of anti- woman sentiment, especially attacks on feminists, but the website presents lots of positive information about fathering.

The Internet is a good source for information about domestic violence and its prevention. One such site is Springtide Resources (http://www.springtideresources.org/), which includes a variety of information related to family violence. MenWeb presents the perspective that women abuse men about as often as men abuse women (http://www.menweb.org/), backed by articles and statistics.

A variety of websites target sexual violence prevention. Two websites offer tips for preventing sexual violence; one is Stop Dating Violence (http://www.stopdatingviolence.org/) and another is It’s on Us (http://itsonus.org/). The latter is part of a campaign to enlist men and women to pledge to be vigilant and willing to intervene in situations that appear to be forced or coerced sex. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (www.rainn. org) maintains a website with information for victims, resources for counseling, and statistics about rape and sexual assault.

References

Alexander, Fiona; Allen, Christine; Brooks, Jonathan; Cole, Claire; & Campbell, Anne. (2004). Reason to believe: Representations of aggression as phenomenological read-out. Sex Roles, 51 , 647–659.

Anderson, Craig A.; & Bushman, Brad J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 , 27–52. Anderson, Kristin L. (2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex Roles, 52 , 853–865. Archer, John. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of

General Psychology, 8 , 291–322. Archer, John; & Coyne, Sarah M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9 , 212–230. Armesto, Jorge C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that infl uence gay fathers’ parental competence:

A review of the literature. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3 , 67–78. Averill, James R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion . New York: Springer-Verlag.

228 Emotion

Baillargeon, Raymond H.; Zoccolillo, Mark; Keenan, Kate; Wu, Hong-Xing; Côté, Sylvana; Pérusse, Daniel; . . . Tremblay, Richard E. (2007). Gender differences in physical aggression: A prospective population-based sur- vey of children before and after 2 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 43 (1), 13–26.

Barrett, Lisa Feldman; & Bliss-Moureau, Eliza. (2009). She’s emotional. He’s having a bad day: Attributional explanations for emotion stereotypes. Emotion, 9 (5), 649–658.

Berman, Phyllis W. (1980). Are women more responsive than men to the young? A review of developmental and situational variables. Psychological Bulletin, 88 , 668–695.

Bettencourt, B. Ann; & Miller, Norman. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119 , 422–447.

Bjorkqvist, Kaj. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30 , 177–188.

Blakemore, Judith E. Owen. (1998). The infl uence of gender and parental attitudes on preschool children’s interest in babies: Observations in natural settings. Sex Roles, 38 , 73–94.

Bowlby, John. (1951). Maternal care and mental health . Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Boxer, Paul; Huesmann, L. Rowell; Bushman, Brad J.; O’Brien, Maureen; & Moceri, Dominic. (2009). The role

of violent media preference in cumulative developmental risk for violence and general aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38 (3), 417–428.

Brannon, Robert. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint of manhood and what it’s done for us lately. In Deborah S. David & Robert Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority (pp. 1–45). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Caldwell, Jennifer E.; Swan, Suzanne C.; Allen, Christopher T.; Sullivan, Tami P.; & Snow, David L. (2009). Why I hit him: Women’s reasons for intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18 (7), 672–697.

Campbell, Anne. (1993). Men, women, and aggression . New York: Basic Books. Campbell, Anne; & Muncer, Steven. (2008). Intent to harm or injure? Gender and the expression of anger.

Aggressive Behavior, 34 (3), 282–293. Card, Noel A.; Stucky, Brian D.; Sawalani, Gita M.; & Little, Todd D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression

during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and rela- tions to maladjustment. Child Development, 79 (5), 1185–1229.

Carlo, Gustavo; Raffaelli, Marcela; Laible, Deborah J.; & Meyer, Kathryn A. (1999). Why are girls less physically aggressive than boys? Personality and parenting mediators of physical aggression. Sex Roles, 40 , 711–730.

Cassidy, Elaine F.; & Stevenson, Howard C., Jr. (2005). They wear the mask: Hypervulnerability and hypermas- culine aggression among African American males in an urban remedial disciplinary school. Journal of Aggres- sion, Maltreatment and Trauma, 11 , 53–74.

Chapleau, Kristine M.; Oswald, Debra L.; & Russell, Brenda L. (2008). Male rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (5), 600–615.

Chaplin, Tara M.; & Aldao, Amelia. (2013). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta- analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 139 (4), 735–765.

Cole, Elizabeth R.; Jayaratne, Toby Esptein; Cecchi, Laura A.; Feldbaum, Merle; & Petty, Elizabeth M. (2007). Vive la difference? Genetic explanations for perceived gender differences in nurturance. Sex Roles, 57 (3/4), 211–222.

Combs-Orme, Terri; & Renkert, Lauren E. (2009). Fathers and their infants: Caregiving and affection in the modern family. Journal of Human Behavior and the Social Environment, 19 (4), 394–418.

Cook, Jerry L.; Jones, Randall M.; Dick, Andrew J.; & Singh, Archana. (2005). Revisiting men’s role in father involvement: The importance of personal expectations. Fathering, 3 , 165–178.

Côté, Sylvana M.; Vaillancourt, Tracy; Barker, Edward D.; Nagin, Daniel S.; & Tremblay, Richard E. (2007). The joint development of physical and indirect aggression: Predictors of continuity and change during child- hood. Development and Psychopathology, 19 (1), 37–55.

Côté, Sylvana M.; Vaillancourt, Tracy; LeBlanc, John C.; Nagin, Daniel S.; & Tremblay, Richard E. (2006). The development of physical aggression from toddlerhood to pre-adolescence: A nation wide longitudinal study of Canadian children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 , 68–82.

Crawford, June; Kippax, Susan; Onxy, Jenny; Gault, Una; & Benton, Pam. (1992). Emotion and gender: Con- structing meaning from memory . London: Sage.

Dabbs, James M., Jr. (with Dabbs, Mary Godwin). (2000). Heroes, rogues, and lovers: Testosterone and behavior . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Emotion 229

Darwin, Charles. (1872). The expression of emotions in man and animals . New York: Philosophical Library. Davis, Elizabeth; Greenberger, Ellen; Charles, Susan; Chen, Chuansheng; Zhao, Libo; & Dong, Qi. (2012).

Emotion experience and regulation in China and the United States: How do culture and gender shape emo- tion responding? International Journal of Psychology, 47 (3), 230–239.

Demoulin, Stéphanie; Leyens, Jacques-Philippe; Paladino, Maria-Paola; Dovidio, John F.; Rodriguez-Torres, Ramón; & Rodriguez-Perez, Armando. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non-uniquely” human emo- tions. Cognition and Emotion, 18 , 71–96.

Devdas, Neetha R.; & Rubin, Linda J. (2007). Rape myth acceptance among fi rst- and second-generation South Asian American women. Sex Roles, 56 (9/10), 701–705.

de Waal, Frans B. M. (2000). Primates—A natural heritage of confl ict resolution. Science, 289 , 586–590. Doherty, Kathy; & Anderson, Irina. (2004). Making sense of male rape: Constructions of gender, sexuality and

experience of rape victims. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14 , 85–103. Donovan, Roxanne; & Williams, Michelle. (2002). Living at the intersection: The effects of racism and sexism

on Black rape survivors. Women & Therapy, 25 , 95–105. Doucet, Andrea. (2006). ‘Estrogen-fi lled worlds’: Fathers as primary caregivers and embodiment. Sociological

Review, 54 (4), 696–716. Drakulich, Kevin M.; & Rose, Kristin. (2013). Being male or living with a female: Fear for partners by sex and

sexual orientation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28 (9), 1765–1797. Dubow, Eric F.; Huesmann, L. Rowell; & Boxer, Paul. (2003). Theoretical and methodological considerations

in cross-generational research on parenting and child aggressive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31 , 185–192.

Durik, Amanda M.; Hyde, Janet Shibley; Marks, Amanda C.; Roy, Amanda L.; Anaya, Debra; & Schultz, Gretchen. (2006). Ethnicity and gender stereotypes of emotion. Sex Roles, 54 (7/8), 429–445.

Eagly, Alice H.; & Steffen, Valerie J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100 , 309–330.

Eid, Michael; & Diener, Ed. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intrana- tional differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 , 869–885.

Eid, Michael; & Diener, Ed. (2009). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intrana- tional differences. In E. Diener (Ed.), Culture and well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 169–202). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

Eisenberg, Nancy; & Lennon, Randy. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94 , 100–131.

Eisikovits, Zvi; Winstok, Zeev; & Gelles, Richard. (2002). Structure and dynamics of escalation from the victim’s perspective. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83 , 142–152.

Ekman, Paul. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 319–343). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ekman, Paul. (1992). Are there basic emotions? Psychological Review, 99 , 550–553. Elfenbein, Hillary Anger; & Ambady, Nalini. (2002). On the universality and cultural specifi city of emotion

recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128 , 203–235. Eron, Leonard D. (1987). The development of aggressive behavior from the perspective of a developing behav-

iorism. American Psychologist, 42 , 435–442. Eron, Leonard D.; Huesmann, L. Rowell; Brice, Patrick; Fischer, Paulette; & Mermelstein, Rebecca. (1983). Age

trends in the development of aggression, sex typing, and related television habits. Developmental Psychology, 19 , 71–77.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014). Crime in the United States 2013 . Retrieved September 19, 2015, from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013

Finley, Gordon E.; & Schwartz, Seth J. (2008). Perceived paternal and maternal involvement: Factor structures, mean differences, and parental roles. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 6 (1), 62–82.

Fischer, Agneta H. (1993). Sex differences in emotionality: Fact or stereotype? Feminism & Psychology, 3 , 303–318.

Fischer, Agneta H.; Eagly, Alice H.; & Oosterwijk, Suzanne. (2013). The meaning of tears: Which sex seems emotional depends on the social context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43 (6), 505–515.

Fischer, Agneta H.; Rodriguez Mosquera, Patricia M.; van Vianen, Annelies E. M.; & Hanstead, Antony S. R. (2004). Gender and culture differences in emotion. Emotion, 4 , 87–94.

230 Emotion

Fisher, Nicola L.; & Pina, Afroditi. (2013). An overview of the literature on female-perpetrated adult male sexual victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 (1), 54–61.

Frodi, Ann M.; Macaulay, Jacqueline; & Thome, Pauline R. (1977). Are women always less aggressive than men? A review of the experimental literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84 , 634–660.

Gaunt, Ruth. (2013). Breadwinning moms, caregiving dads: Double standard in social judgments of gender norm violators. Journal of Family Issues, 34 (1), 3–24.

Giesler, Mark. (2012). Gay fathers’ negotiation of gender role strain: A qualitative inquiry. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, & Practice about Men as Fathers, 10 (2), 119–139.

Goodkind, Sara; Wallace, John M.; Shook, Jeffrey J.; Bachman, Jerald; & O’Malley, Patrick. (2009). Are girls really becoming more delinquent? Testing the gender convergence hypothesis by race and ethnicity, 1976–2005. Children and Youth Services Review, 31 (8), 885–895.

Graham, Kathryn; & Wells, Samantha. (2001). The two worlds of aggression for men and women. Sex Roles, 45 , 595–622.

Hall, Gordon C. Nagayama; Teten, Andra L.; DeGarmo, David S.; Sue, Stanley; & Stephens, Kari A. (2005). Ethnicity, culture, and sexual aggression: Risk and protective factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73 , 830–840.

Harlow, Harry F. (1959). Love in infant monkeys. Scientifi c American, 200 (6), 68–74. Harlow, Harry F. (1971). Learning to love . San Francisco: Albion. Harlow, Harry F.; & Harlow, Margaret Kuenne. (1962). Social deprivation in monkeys. Scientifi c American, 207 ,

136–146. Hawley, Patricia H.; & Vaughn, Brian E. (2003). Aggression and adaptive functioning: The bright side to bad

behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49 , 239–242. Hay, Dale F.; Nash, Alison; Caplan, Marlene; Swartzentruber, Jan; Fumiko Ishikawa; & Vespo, Jo Ellen. (2011).

The emergence of gender differences in physical aggression in the context of confl ict between young peers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29 (2), 158–175.

Heise, Lori; Ellsberg, Mary; & Gottemoeller, Megan. (1999). Ending violence against women. Population Reports , Series L, No. 11. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, School of Public Health, Population Informa- tion Program.

Hill, Melanie S.; & Fischer, Ann R. (2001). Does entitlement mediate the link between masculinity and rape- related variables? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48 , 39–50.

Hofer, Myron A. (2006). Psychobiological roots of early attachment. Current Directions in Psychological Sci- ence, 15 , 84–88.

Horror show. (2006, April 3). Scary movies are multiplying faster than ever, and getting increasingly sadistic. Newsweek , 60.

Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. (1981). The woman that never evolved . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection . New York:

Pantheon Books. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. (2009). Mothers & others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding . Cambridge, MA:

Belknap Press. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. (2013). Overdue dialogues: Foreword to Evolution’s Empress . In M. L. Fisher, J. R. Garcia, &

R. Sokol Chang (Eds.), Evolution’s Empress: Darwinian perspective on the nature of women (pp. xv–xix). New York: Oxford University Press.

Huesmann, L. Rowell; Dubow, Eric F.; & Boxer, Paul. (2011). The transmission of aggressiveness across genera- tions: Biological, contextual, and social learning processes. In P. R. Shaver & M. Mikulincer (Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 123–142). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Huesmann, L. Rowell; Eron, Leonard D.; Lefkowitz, Monroe M.; & Walder, Leopold O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20 , 1120–1134.

Huesmann, L. Rowell; Moise-Titus, Jessica; Podolski, Cheryl-Lynn; & Eron, Leonard D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adult- hood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39 , 201–221.

Jakupcak, Matthew; Tull, Matthew T.; & Roemer, Lizabeth. (2005). Masculinity, shame, and fear of emotions as predictors in men’s expressions of anger and hostility. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6 , 275–284.

Emotion 231

Keisner, Jody. (2008). Do you want to watch? A study of the visual rhetoric of the postmodern horror fi lm. Women’s Studies, 37 (4), 411–427.

Keltikangas-Jarvinen, Liisa. (2002). Aggressive problem-solving strategies, aggressive behavior, and social accep- tance in early and late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31 , 279–287.

Kim-Prieto, Chu; & Eid, Michael. (2004). Norms for experiencing emotions in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5 , 241–268.

King, Neal. (2005, May 26–30). Boy jokes: Content analysis of Hollywood misogyny in mean girl and slasher movies . Paper presented at the 55th national conference of the International Communication Association, New York.

Kokko, Katja; & Pulkkinen, Lea. (2005). Stability of aggressive behavior from childhood to middle age in men and women. Aggressive Behavior, 31 , 485–497.

Kokko, Katja; Pulkkinen, Lea; Huesmann, L. Rowell; Dubow, Eric F.; & Boxer, Paul. (2009). Intensity of aggres- sion in childhood as a predictor of different forms of adult aggression: A two-country (Finland and the United States) analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19 (1), 9–34.

Kopper, Beverly A.; & Epperson, Douglas L. (1996). The experience and expression of anger: Relationships with gender, gender role socialization, depression, and mental health functioning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43 , 158–165.

Koss, Mary P.; Gidycz, Christine A.; & Wisniewski, Nadine. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55 , 162–170.

Krahé, Barbara; Scheinberger-Olwig, Renate; & Bieneck, Steffen. (2003). Men’s reports of nonconsensual sexual interactions with women: Prevalence and impact. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 165–175.

Krieglmeyer, Regina; Wittstadt, Doris; & Strack, Fritz. (2009). How attribution infl uences aggression: Answers to an old question by using an implicit measure of anger. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (2), 379–385.

Lafl amme, Darquise; Pomerleau, Andree; & Malcuit, Gerard. (2002). A comparison of fathers’ and mothers’ involvement in childcare and stimulation behaviors during free-play with their infants at 9 and 15 months. Sex Roles, 47 , 507–518.

Lahey, Benjamin B.; Goodman, Sherryl H.; Canino, Glorisa; Bird, Hector; Schwab-Stone, Mary; Waldman, Irwin D.; . . . Jensen, Peter S. (2000). Age and gender differences in oppositional behavior and conduct prob- lems: Cross-sectional household study of middle childhood and adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109 , 488–503.

Lane, Jodi; Gover, Angela R.; & Dahod, Sara. (2009). Fear of violent crime among men and women on campus: The impact of perceived risk and fear of sexual assault. Violence and Victims, 24 (2), 172–192.

Larson, Reed; & Pleck, Joseph. (1999). Hidden feelings: Emotionality in boys and men. In D. Bernstein (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1999: Gender and motivation (pp. 25–74). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Laumann, Edward O.; Gagnon, John H.; Michael, Robert T.; & Michaels, Stuart. (1994). The social organization of sexuality . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lee, Joohee; Pomeroy, Elizabeth C.; Yoo, Seo-Koo; & Rheinboldt, Kurt T. (2005). Attitudes toward rape. Vio- lence Against Women, 11 , 177–196.

Lefkowitz, Monroe M.; Eron, Leonard D.; Walder, Leopold O.; & Huesmann, L. Rowell. (1977). Growing up to be violent: A longitudinal study of the development of aggression . New York: Pergamon Press.

Lepowsky, Maria. (1994). Women, men, and aggression in an egalitarian society. Sex Roles, 30 , 199–211. Lerner, Jennifer S.; Dahl, Ronald E.; Hariri, Ahmad R., & Taylor, Shelley E. (2007). Facial expressions of emo-

tion reveal neuroendocrine and cardiovascular stress responses. Biological Psychiatry, 61 (2), 253-260. Lerner, Jennifer S.; Gonzalez, Roxana M.; Small, Deborah A.; & Fischhoff, Baruch. (2005). Effects of fear and

anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national fi eld experiment. Psychological Responses to the New Terrorism: A NATO-Russia Dialogue, 3 (1), 67–79.

Lombardo, William K.; Cretser, Gary A.; & Roesch, Scott C. (2001). For crying out loud—The differences persist into the ’90s. Sex Roles, 45 , 529–547.

Lorber, Judith. (1997). Believing is seeing: Biology as ideology. In M. Baca Zinn, P. Hondagneu-Sotelo, & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Through the prism of difference: Readings on sex and gender (pp. 13–22). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

232 Emotion

Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons; & Jacklin, Carol Nagy. (1974). The psychology of sex differences . Stanford, CA: Stan- ford University Press.

Malamuth, Neil M. (1996). The confl uence model of sexual aggression: Feminist and evolutionary perspectives. In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 269–295). New York: Oxford University Press.

Malamuth, Neil; Hald, Gert; & Koss, Mary. (2012). Pornography, individual differences in risk and men’s acceptance of violence against women in a representative sample. Sex Roles, 66 (7/8), 427–439.

Mansfi eld, Abigail K.; Addis, Michael E.; Cordova, James V.; & Dowd, Lynn. (2009). Emotional skillfulness as a key mediator of aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 18 (5), 221–247.

Maurer, Trent W.; & Pleck, Joseph H. (2006). Fathers’ caregiving and breadwinning: A gender congruence analy- sis. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7 , 101–112.

Melo, Angel I.; Lovic, Vedran; Gonzalez, Andrea; Madden, Melissa; Sinopoli, Katia; & Fleming, Alison S. (2006). Maternal and littermate deprivation disrupts maternal behavior and social learning of food preferences in adulthood: Tactile stimulation, nest odor, and social rearing prevent these effects. Developmental Psychobiol- ogy, 48 , 209–219.

Melson, Gail F. (2001). Why the wild things are: Animals in the lives of children . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press.

Melson, Gail F.; & Fogel, Alan. (1988). The development of nurturance in young children. Young Children, 43 , 57–65.

Mesquita, Batja; & Frijda, Nico H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 112 , 179–204.

Miller, Lisa; & Ramirez, Jessica. (2009, June 22). The sins of fathers. Newsweek, 153 (25), 32. Mortimer, Ann M. (2007). The neuroscience of maternal behaviour. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 3 (2), 129–135. Nelson, Nicole L.; & Russell, James A. (2013). Universality revisited. Emotion Review, 5 (1), 8–15. Ostrov, Jamie M.; Crick, Nicki R.; & Keating, Caroline F. (2005). Gender-based perceptions of preschoolers’

behavior: How much is aggression and prosocial behavior in the eye of the beholder? Sex Roles, 52 , 393–398.

Parke, Ross D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 27–73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Parmley, Maria; & Cunningham, Joseph. (2008). Children’s gender-emotion stereotypes in the relationship of anger to sadness and fear. Sex Roles, 58 (5/6), 358–370.

Perry, David G.; Perry, Louise C.; & Weiss, Robert J. (1989). Sex differences in the consequences that children anticipate for aggression. Developmental Psychology, 25 , 312–319.

Peterson, Carole; & Biggs, Marleen. (2001). “I was really, really, really mad!” Children’s use of evaluative devices in narratives about emotional events. Sex Roles, 45 , 801–825.

Pino, Nathan W.; & Meier, Robert F. (1999). Gender differences in rape reporting. Sex Roles, 40 , 979–990. Plant, E. Ashby; Hyde, Janet Shibley; Keltner, Dacher; & Devine, Patricia G. (2000). The gender stereotyping

of emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24 , 81–92. Planty, Michael; Langton, Lynn; Berzofsky, Marcus; & Smiley-McDonald, Hope. (2013). Female victims of

sexual violence, 1994–2010 . U.S. Department of Justice Offi ce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved August 19, 2016, from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

Pleck, Elizabeth H.; & Pleck, Joseph H. (1997). Fatherhood ideals in the United States: Historical dimensions. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 33–48). New York: Wiley.

Pleck, Joseph H. (1997). Parental involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 66–103). New York: Wiley.

Renk, Kimberly; Roberts, Rex; Roddenberry, Angela; Luick, Mary; Hillhouse, Sarah; Meehan, Cricket; . . . Phares, Vicky. (2003). Mothers, fathers, gender role, and time parents spend with their children. Sex Roles, 48 , 305–315.

Richardson, Deborah South. (2005). The myth of female passivity: Thirty years of revelations about female aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29 (3), 238–247.

Rickert, Vaughn I.; Vaughan, Roger D.; & Wiemann, Constance M. (2003). Violence against young women: Implications for clinicians. Contemporary OB/GYN, 48 (2), 30–45.

Rilling, James K. (2013). The neural and hormonal bases of human parental care. Neuropsychologia, 51 (4), 731–747.

Emotion 233

Risman, Barbara J. (1989). Can men “mother”? Life as a single father. In B. J. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.), Gender in intimate relationships: A microstructural approach (pp. 155–164). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ryan, Kathryn M. (2004). Further evidence for a cognitive component of rape. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9 , 579–604.

Sable, Marjorie R.; Danis, Fran; Mauzy, Denise L.; & Gallagher, Sarah K. (2006). Barriers to report sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students. Journal of American College Health, 55 (3), 157–162.

Safdar, Saba; Friedlmeier, Wolfgang; Mutsumoto, David; Yoo, Seun Hee; Kwantes, Catherine T.; Kakai, Hisako; & Shigemasu, Eri. (2009). Variations of emotional display rules within and across cultures: A comparison between Canada, USA, and Japan. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41 (1), 1–10.

Sanderson, Susan; & Sanders Thompson, Vetta L. (2002). Factors associated with perceived paternal involve- ment in childrearing. Sex Roles, 46 , 99–111.

Santiago-Menendez, Mahal; & Campbell, Anne. (2013). Sadness and anger: Boys, girls, and crying in adoles- cence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 14 (4), 400–410.

Sapolsky, Barry S.; Molitor, Fred; & Luque, Sarah. (2003). Sex and violence in slasher fi lms: Re-examining the assumptions. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80 , 28–38.

Schafer, Joseph A.; Huebner, Beth M.; & Bynum, Timothy S. (2006). Fear of crime and criminal victimization: Gender-based contrasts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34 , 285–301.

Scherer, Klaus R.; Wallbott, Harald G.; & Summerfi eld, Angela B. (Eds.). (1986). Experiencing emotion: A cross- cultural study . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, Lawrence; Mori, Lisa; Lambert, Paul; & Wong, Anna. (2009). The role of gender and ethnicity in perception of rape and its aftereffects. Sex Roles, 60 (5/6), 410–421.

Scully, Diana. (1990). Understanding sexual violence: A study of convicted rapists . London: HarperCollins Academic.

Sell, Aaron; Hone, Liana; & Pound, Nicholas. (2012). The importance of physical strength to human males. Human Nature, 23 (1), 30–44.

Setoodeh, Ramin. (2011). Crazy chick fl icks. Newsweek, 157 (6), 43–45. Shields, Stephanie A. (2002). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social meaning of emotion . Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press. Silverstein, Louise B. (1993). Primate research, family politics, and social policy: Transforming “cads” into

“dads.” Journal of Family Psychology, 7 , 267–282. Silverstein, Louise B.; Auerbach, Carl F.; & Levant, Ronald F. (2002). Contemporary fathers reconstructing

masculinity: Clinical implications of gender role strain. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 , 361–369.

Simon, Robin W.; & Nath, Leda E. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 109 , 1137–1176.

Sloan, Melissa M. (2012). Controlling anger and happiness at work: An examination of gender differences. Gender, Work & Organizations, 19 (4), 370–391.

Small, Kevonne. (2000). Female crime in the United States, 1963–1998. Gender Issues, 18 , 75–90. Smith, Harriet J. (2005). Parenting for primates . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Steffensmeier, Darrel; & Allan, Emilie. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offend-

ing. Annual Review of Sociology, 22 , 459–477. Stevens, Jennifer S.; & Hamann, Stephan. (2012). Sex differences in brain activation to emotional stimuli: A

meta-analysis of neuorimaging studies. Neuropsychologia, 50 (7), 1578–1593. Straus, Murray A. (2009). Gender symmetry in partner violence: Evidence and implications for prevention and

treatment. In D. J. Whitaker & J. R. Lutzker (Eds.), Preventing partner violence: Research and evidence-based intervention (pp. 245–271). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Struckman-Johnson, Cindy; & Struckman-Johnson, David. (1994). Men pressured and forced into sexual expe- rience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 , 93–114.

Taylor, Tiffany; & Risman, Barbara J. (2006). Doing deference or speaking up: Deconstructing the experience and expression of anger. Race, Gender & Class, 13 (3/4), 60–80.

Trencansky, Sarah. (2001). Final girls and terrible youth: Transgression in 1980s slasher horror. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 29 , 63–73.

Valles, Nizete-Ly; & Knutson, John F. (2008). Contingent responses of mothers and peers to indirect and direct aggression in preschool and school-aged children. Aggressive Behavior, 34 (5), 497–510.

234 Emotion

van Hemert, Dianne A.; van de Vijver, Fons J. R.; & Vingerhoets, Ad J.J.M. (2011). Culture and crying: Preva- lences and gender differences. Cross-Cultural Research, 45 (4), 399–431.

Wang, Rong; & Bianchi, Suzanne. (2009). ATUS fathers’ involvement in childcare. Social Indicators Research, 93 (1), 141–145.

Weiss, Karen G. (2009). “Boys will be boys” and other gendered accounts. Violence Against Women, 15 (7), 810–834.

Weisstein, Naomi. (1982, November). Tired of arguing about biological inferiority? Ms ., 41–46, 85. Winstok, Zeev; Eisikovits, Zvi; & Gelles, Richard. (2002). Structure and dynamics of escalation from the bat-

terer’s perspective. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83 , 129–141. Wiseman, Rosalind. (2002). Queen bees and wannabes: Helping your daughter survive cliques, gossip, boyfriends,

and other realities of adolescence . New York: Crown. Wong, Y. Joel; Pituch, Keenan A.; & Rochlen, Aaron B. (2006). Men’s restrictive emotionality: An investigation

of associations with other emotion-related constructs, anxiety, and underlying dimensions. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 113–126.

Wood, Jeffrey J.; & Repetti, Rena L. (2004). What gets dad involved? A longitudinal study of change in parental child caregiving involvement. Journal of Family Psychology, 18 , 237–249.

Woollett, Anne; & Marshall, Harriette. (2001). Motherhood and mothering. In Rhoda K. Unger (Ed.), Hand- book of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 170–182). New York: Wiley.

Young, Emma. (2013). Do get mad. New Scientist, 217 (2903), 48–51.

Headline: “The New Rules of Dating,” Men’s Fitness , February, 2013

The rules of dating have changed, according to a recent headline (Green, 2013), and men may not be prepared. One change involves who stares at whom. In the old days, men checked out women, even when the men were on a date with a woman. In the new dating game, it’s women who are staring at men. And they are not starting at men’s faces: Women are giving men’s bodies attention that is similar to the ways that men gaze at women. Another change involves dating several women or men at once. According to the old rules, dating one partner was the ideal (Netting & Burnett, 2004), but the new dating rules allow dat- ing several partners. However, the new rule applies equally to women, and Green’s headline article advised men not to be upset if some of the women they are juggling are performing a similar balancing act with several men.

Referred to as multi-dating, the new rules allow not only men but also women to date as many partners as they can schedule. This change has prompted an alteration some young women’s defi nition of relationships (Wilkins & Dalessandro, 2013). Monogamy is the ideal for many young women—“real” relationships are exclusive—but they are not cheating by having other dates. Thus, they can participate in multi-dating without considering them- selves cheaters (who are bad people). This change may seem like a major step toward gender convergence concerning attitudes about relationships, but other research (Eaton & Rose, 2011) indicates that the changes in relationships are less drastic than the headline story sug- gests and that gender stereotypes continue to dominate dating.

Robert Sternberg (1986) proposed a model of relationships intended to capture critical elements of all relationships, including the old and new rules for dating. Sternberg called his model the triangular model of relationships because he conceptualized all relationships as consisting of varying amounts of three components. Passion is one of the three components of Sternberg’s triangular model, and this component may dominate relationships following the new rules of dating. Intimacy is the second, which involves feelings of closeness. This component is also evident in romantic love and exists in varying levels in dating couples. But romantic love is not the entire story of why we love. For love to last, passion and intimacy are not enough. Commitment is essential for a continuing relationship and furnishes the third point of Sternberg’s triangle. Commitment is conspicuously lacking in women and men who are “multi-dating” several partners.

Sternberg’s triangular model is a good place to start in conceptualizing all types of rela- tionships. His conception of intimacy encompasses feelings of closeness, passion includes romantic and sexual attraction, and commitment involves the decision that love exists and the relationship should continue. Figure 9.1 shows Sternberg’s model and the different types of relationships that result from the combinations of these elements. Sternberg argued that if none of these components exists, there is no relationship.

9 Relationships

236 Relationships

In Sternberg’s model, liking occurs when people share intimacy, but not passion or com- mitment. When individuals share intimacy and commitment without passion, then com- panionate love results. This type of love forms the basis for love relationships that endure and may be more conducive to lasting love relationships than the type of passion that often begins intimate love relationships. However, companionate love also describes what most people regard as close friendship.

Friendships

Although Sternberg’s triangular theory of love makes no distinction between intimacy devel- oped through sharing feelings or through sharing activities, these two styles tend to be associ- ated with women and men, respectively. These gender differences have been the source of friction and contention, with men being accused of defi ciencies in intimacy because their friendships are not the same style as women’s friendships. That accusation has not always existed, nor do all cultures discourage intimate, emotional friendships between men (Nardi, 2007; O’Donnell & O’Rouke, 2003). The Greeks believed that true friendships could exist only between free and equal individuals, which restricted true friendship to a limited number and omitted all women, slaves, and men of lesser social standing. That view differs sharply from modern, Western society, where the type of intimacy typical of women’s friendships has become the model.

Development of Styles

The basis for gender differences in friendship begins early in development, with a tendency for children to segregate themselves according to gender (Maccoby, 2002). Starting at pre- school age and becoming more pronounced throughout elementary and middle school, children group themselves according to gender, even if parents or teachers do not. When girls and boys are put into situations in which they must interact, they do, but the tendency to group into same-gender associations is a persistent pattern for children and occurs in many cultures (Munroe & Romney, 2006).

Figure 9.1 Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

Adapted from “A triangular theory of love,” (pp. 123, 128) by R. J. Sternberg, 1986, Psychological Review, 93. Adapted by permission of Robert Sternberg and the American Psychological Association.

Relationships 237

The interaction patterns of boys and girls differ, beginning very early in development. A study that focused on the interactions of pairs of 33-month-old children (Jacklin & Maccoby, 1978) found that children interacted more with those of the same rather than with the other gender, in both positive and negative ways. Children in same-gender pairs were more likely to offer toys to their partners or try to take toys from their partners than the children in mixed-gender pairs. In pairs with a boy and a girl, the girls tended to be passive, standing by and watching the boys play, and the boys tended to be unresponsive, ignoring what the girls said to them. In same-gender pairs, the girls were active in their exchanges, and the boys were responsive to their partners’ messages. If these reactions are typical, no wonder gender segregation occurs; playing would not be that much fun if your partner did not listen and failed to react.

Before age 3, children may show preferences for playmates, but between ages 3 and 6 years, children begin to show signs of developing friendships, such as being able to name a person as a friend and even saying who is a “best” friend (Berndt, 2004; Lindsey, 2002). Children’s notion of friendship progresses, and personal characteristics become important in choosing friends. During elementary and middle school, children become more involved in friendships, relying on friends rather than siblings and parents for companionship and inti- macy (Cleary, Ray, LoBello, & Zachar, 2002). The research on elementary school children has demonstrated that friends were important sources of companionship for these second, third, fi fth, and sixth graders. Friendship is an important part of the lives of preadolescents; it can promote healthy adjustment (Waldrip, Malcolm, & Jensen-Campbell, 2008; Way, 2011). Friends can also be a negative infl uence during this developmental period, providing encouragement for destructive behaviors (Berndt, 2004; Wissink, Dekovi, & Meijer, 2009).

Gender differences in the development of intimate friendship appear during elementary school. One possible basis for the gender differences in friendships during middle childhood comes from the different activities that girls and boys enjoy during these years. For example,

Photo 9.1 Boys tend to form friendships based on activities.

238 Relationships

boys are more fond of rough-and-tumble play than girls are. Such play involves play-fi ghting and chasing and is more common among boys than girls (Scott & Panksepp, 2003). Boys also tend to play in somewhat larger groups, to spend more time outside, and to engage in activities that involve gross motor skills , such as running, jumping, and throwing a ball. Observing children on playgrounds demonstrates gender segregation but not overall differ- ences in levels of activity—girls are as physically active as boys (Mota et al., 2005). However, girls both seek and value intimacy more than boys (Cleary et al., 2002; Rose, 2007). This desire may also make girls’ friendships more fragile than boys’ friendships; girls’ friendship networks change more rapidly than boys’ circles of friends (Benenson & Christakos, 2003; Chan & Poulin, 2007).

Gender is not the only basis for self-segregation during the early school years. Ethnic and racial backgrounds are also characteristics that children notice and use as a basis for forming groups. Ethnic background showed less of an effect than gender as a basis for groupings in one study (DuBois & Hirsch, 1990). When put into a position to choose, children crossed ethnic lines before gender lines. Interracial friendships form at school, but tend to be less common as children get older (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003). However, the patterns of crossing ethnic lines to form friends may persist into adulthood (Joyner & Kao, 2000), and cross-ethnic friendships are similar to other friendships in terms of loyalty and intimacy. Attending a multiethnic school increases the chances of making friends with someone from another ethnic group, but ethnicity remains a basis for grouping.

Photo 9.2 Girls tend to form friendships that include emotional intimacy.

Relationships 239

Gender segregation is a strong force during the elementary school years, and some research- ers have contended that two worlds exist for children during this developmental period—a girls’ and a boys’ culture (McDougall & Hymel, 2007). Children are certainly reluctant to cross gender lines (Thorne, 1993), imposing this segregation on themselves, even when adults do not. When children cross the gender boundaries, some of the interactions are hos- tile, taking the form of name-calling, invading another’s space, pollution games and rituals (“cooties”), and occasional fi ghts. Situations of comfortable interaction may not represent common observations, but a study of children and adolescents (McDougall & Hymel, 2007) found that almost all the participants reported that cross-gender friendships were possible, and 93% said they had experienced such a friendship.

Preadolescents must avoid members of the other gender except under certain sanctioned circumstances, yet each gender must have suffi cient contact to learn about the other. Research has suggested that friendships are important in the development of romantic relationships. Indeed, friendships may be more important than parental relationships in forming later romantic relationships (Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002). Considering that both friendships and romantic relationships are peer relationships of relative equality, this similar- ity makes sense. Thus, same-gender friendships during childhood may serve the function of allowing individuals to learn how to form relationships without the pressure of sexual contact. Referring back to Sternberg’s model of relationships, these relationships allow the development of intimacy and commitment without passion. Childhood friendships, then, might be regarded as a type of practice for adolescent and adult romantic relationships. The active avoidance that children practice for the other sex changes to active interest during ado- lescence; contact between girls and boys becomes more common, but friendships between girls and boys remain much less common than same-sex friendships.

Friendships over the Lifespan

Friendships during adolescence are similar to those of preadolescence, but adolescents intensify the intimacy in their relationships with a greater degree of personal sharing and self-disclosure than those of younger children (McDougall & Hymel, 2007). The gender differences in the value and attainment of intimacy persist, with girls more likely to be interested in forming emotionally intimate friendships with a smaller set of girls, and boys more likely to form activity-based friendships with a more extensive set of boys. The type of friendship may relate to the gender difference in competition among friends. Boys are more competitive with their friends than girls are, but competition decreases relationship satisfaction (Singleton & Vacca, 2007).

Adolescent girls use talk as a way to develop intimacy, to reveal and learn intimate knowl- edge about each other, which includes a greater involvement with problems and life tran- sitions than boys’ friendships do (Roy, Benenson, & Lilly, 2000). Although this type of exchange tends to make girls’ friendships closer, it may serve as a way to magnify problems and increase personal distress (Calmes & Roberts, 2008). Not all girls’ relationships involve the same degree of talk-based intimacy. Unexpectedly, boys’ friendships include more talk that meets the defi nition of gossip than girls’ friendships (Watson, 2012), but boys’ gossip revolves around gaining social knowledge, which give them status and power, not intimacy. African American women rated emotional communication as less important to friendship than European American and Asian American women (Samter & Burleson, 2005). African American men placed the lowest value on emotional communication.

This attitude of aloofness and withdrawal from intimacy is a set of behaviors that Richard Majors and his colleagues (Hall, 2009; Majors & Billson, 1992; Majors, Tyler, Peden, & Hall, 1994) labeled cool pose . Cool pose is a way that African American men present themselves,

240 Relationships

used as a compensation and coping strategy. The poses, postures, humor, readiness to use violence, and suppression of emotional displays are intended to create visibility for those who have been made invisible by a society that fails to grant African American men the status of European American men. The violence and suppression of emotion are elements of the masculine gender role, and cool pose uses an exaggeration of this role. This exaggeration allows African American men to feel a sense of masculinity. Cool pose magnifi es some of the destructive elements of the masculine gender role, creating problems for those who take this pose. In addition to the violence associated with interpersonal confl icts, the emotional remoteness that is essential to the cool pose also inhibits the development of intimacy, both with women and with other men. Studies of young African American men confi rmed both the feelings of vulnerability and the hypermasculinity that are characteristic of cool pose (Cassidy & Stevenson, 2005) as well as strivings for wealth and leadership and avoidance of femininity (Harris, Palmer, & Struve, 2011).

Adherence to a traditional model of masculinity affects men of all ethnic groups because emotional closeness is a feminine behavior, and traditional men must avoid feminine behav- ior. Indeed, one study (Oransky & Marecek, 2009) of White adolescent boys examined how these boys concentrated on deriding and mocking displays of concern and caring in their peer groups, labeling them as “girly” and “gay.” This attitude discourages men from having close friends but allows comrades or “buddies.” The distinction is important: A comrade is important for the function he serves, such as playing cards, fi xing cars, or being a team mem- ber, but another person can fi ll that position. Friends are valued as individuals in personal relationships. A study of middle-aged White men (Levy, 2005) showed that acceptance of traditional masculinity predicted having buddies but not friends.

Studies of friendship among college students (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Radmacher & Azmitia, 2006; Roy et al., 2000) confi rmed some gender differences and similarities in friendship. These studies failed to fi nd differences in the number or importance of friend- ships or in the time spent with friends. Men were more likely than women to choose an activity to do with a friend rather than “just talk” and to choose their friends on the basis of shared activities rather than shared attitudes. Women in Russia reported similar patterns of friendship (Sheets & Lugar, 2005). One of the shared activities for male college students is drinking alcohol, which may bond these friends in college, but will also have a negative impact on their education (Li, Frieze, Nokes-Malach, & Cheong, 2013).

With the formation of committed love relationships, birth of children, and transition to the workforce, changes occur in existing friendships and the opportunities to form new friendships. Workplace settings become important in friendship formation, presenting peo- ple with similar interests with whom colleagues spend time. Research on young professionals’ work-based friendships (Gibbons & Olk, 2003) indicated that young professionals readily crossed gender but not ethnic boundaries in making friends at work.

During the early years of marriage or committed relationships, both partners may relinquish other relationships to develop their relationship, seeking emotional intimacy and support from each other rather than from friends. When couples become parents, the children take up time that might have been devoted to friends (or even to spouses). Young couples, especially those with children, tend to devote less time to other friendships than people who are single or child- less, which tends to alter friendships (Fehr, 2000). Women are more likely than men to work at maintaining a network of social relationships, and these relationships are important for their well-being and health (Cable, Bartley, Chandola, & Sacker, 2013). For men, friendships are important for their happiness, but family relationships are related to their health.

Aging produces changes in friendships; older adults need more practical support, and their number of friends decreases due to death. Children and families are the main sources of caregiving and practical support for older adults (Movement Advancement Project [MAP],

Relationships 241

2010), and older people strive to maintain social networks (Pahl & Pevalin, 2005). In addi- tion, friendships among older adults have many advantages, not only for the participants but also advantages over friendships in other age groups (Luong, Charles, & Fingerman, 2011). For example, older adults reported deriving greater satisfaction from their social interactions and showed better strategies to avoid confl ict as well as increase positive experiences in these interactions.

Although a social network is important to most people, older individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) rely on “families of choice” for social support and care- giving to a greater extent than older people who are heterosexual (MAP, 2010). Individuals who are LGBT are less likely to have children and are also less likely to have good relation- ships with their families, which puts them in positions of creating a social network. These relationships lack legal status, which presents barriers for LGBT individuals as they age and require health care and social services.

Social networks are also important to heterosexual older women living alone, decreas- ing their loneliness in ways that contact with their children does not (Eshbaugh, 2009). Indeed, confi dants perform a variety of support functions for older women (Moremen, 2008). Women become more numerous in the social networks of older adults because men die at younger ages, leaving more women. Thus, men’s same-gender friendships tend to be replaced with relationships with women, making friendship more female-based among older people. Table 9.1 summarizes some of the key characteristics of friendships over the lifespan.

Table 9.1 Characteristics of Friendships over the Lifespan

Developmental Period Dominant Theme Girls’ Tend to Boys’ Tend to

During Early Childhood and Preschool

• Gender segregation begins • Friendships replace play

preferences

Be active in exchanges with other girls but passive with boys

Be responsive in interactions with boys but not with girls

During Elementary School

Friendships become important and intimacy develops

Engage in cooperative play with other girls

Engage in rough-and- tumble play with other boys

During preadolescence

Gender segregation is strong Value friendships but also engage in confl icts with friends

Value friendships but risk being drawn into destructive play

During adolescence Intensifi ed intimacy Form talk-based relationships with girls but possibly cross-gender friendships

Form activity-based friendships with boys but possibly cross-gender friendships

During college years Friendships remain important Continue with talk-based, intimate friendships with women

Continue with activity- based, “buddy” friendships with men

During young adulthood

Family and careers diminish time for friends

Are likely to maintain some close friendships with women

Are less likely to have a close friend but likely to have buddies

During middle adulthood

Family and careers are more important than friends

Maintain the social and friendship network

Make friends through workplace relationships

During later adulthood

• Friendships become more female-based

• Social network must provide practical as well as social support

Have better strategies to maintain positive interactions with friends

Are more likely to form friendships with women

242 Relationships

Flexibility of Styles Men may fi nd emotional intimacy easier with women than with other men. As Francesca Cancian (1987) proposed, love has become “feminized,” that is, defi ned in feminine terms, as the expression of feelings and as self-disclosure. These characteristics are commonly asso- ciated with women and are actually more common in women’s than men’s friendships. But men can also use this style of relationship and tend to do so when they relate to women, either as friends or as romantic partners.

When people think of friends, they imagine people of the same gender, so cross-gender friendships break this “rule.” The model for cross-gender relationships is romance, so cross- gender friendships also break this rule. These friendships are a social development that did not exist 100 years ago when Western societies were strongly gender segregated, and women governed the home and men occupied the world of work, politics, and business. Although gender segregation still exists in some situations, school and work offer opportunities for cross-gender relationships (Sias, Smith, & Avdeyeva, 2003).

Because these friendships deviate from people’s stereotypes of what friendship should be, cross-gender friendships face challenges and constraints. The friends frequently must explain “we’re just good friends” to others, especially romantic partners, who may be jealous (Bevan & Samter, 2004). Some research has found that cross-gender friendships face barriers (Werk- ing, 1997), but other research (Felmlee, Sweet, & Sinclair, 2012) indicates that cross-gender friendships are similar to same-gender friendships. Indeed, a survey of people in the United States indicated that cross-gender friendships have become more common and more well accepted, among both children (McDougall & Hymel, 2007) and young adults who grew up with less gender segregation than older individuals (Paul, 2003).

Individuals involved in cross-gender friendships agree that these relationships differ from same-gender friendships (McDougall & Hymel, 2007), but both men and women are usually able to use different styles of relating in different relationships (DeLucia-Waack, Gerrity, Taub, & Baldo, 2001). The ability to adapt to the situation by using a more “feminine” or “masculine” style of interaction indicates that styles of friendship are indeed roles that men and women learn. Although not all men may learn the intimate sharing and self-disclosure that are typical of women’s friendships, most do and use this style when they form friendships with women (Werking, 1997). Men who scored higher in feminin- ity and women whose masculinity scores were high on the Bem Sex Role Inventory were more likely than individuals with more traditional gender role beliefs to form cross-gender friendships (Reeder, 2003).

Men may feel uncomfortable in enacting this friendship style for several reasons. As several researchers have pointed out, homophobia —the unreasonable fear and hatred of homosexuality—restrains men from seeking emotional intimacy with other men. Even when men know the style, they may be reluctant to use it. When they use it, they may feel more comfortable in this type of relationship with women rather than with other men.

The constraints on women’s behavior are not as strong; their typical style of emotional intimacy with other women carries no homosexual connotations. However, emotional inti- macy between women and men often has an element of a sexual relationship, so women who seek friendships with men also often feel that they must be vigilant in maintaining the nonsexual aspect of these friendships. Women who adopt an activity-based style of rela- tionship with men, being “one of the boys,” can participate in the same activities that men enjoy with each other—playing baseball, poker, or other recreational activities. This choice creates a style of relationship typical of men’s “buddy” friendships, demonstrating fl exibility in friendship styles.

Relationships 243

Love Relationships

Love relationships are an experience that occurs in all cultures, but our current concept of romantic love is not universal. Elaine Hatfi eld and Richard Rapson (1996) contended that this type of love has not been the basis for permanent relationships until recently in indus- trialized Western countries. Historically, passionate, romantic love has posed a threat to the existing social structure and has rarely formed the basis for permanent relationships. Many cultures have literature or legends about lovers who have died tragically as the result of their passion and the unsuitability of any permanent relationship. The story of Romeo and Juliet is an example familiar to English-speaking cultures, but Hatfi eld and Rapson described similar stories from ancient and modern societies around the world. Passionate love has been seen as madness rather than a good basis for marriage. The more common pattern for forming per- manent relationships has been (and in many cultures remains) arranged marriages in which families choose mates for children. In such arranged marriages, fi nancial considerations rather than love or passion have been the motivations for the match.

Several different patterns of love relationships have existed over the past several centuries in Western cultures (Cancian, 1987). Before the 1800s, an agricultural economy required both men and women to work on family farms, making the family the center of both men’s and women’s lives. Although men were the heads of households, both men and women believed that marriage gave them the duty to love and help one another. In Sternberg’s (1986) triangular model of love, this Family Duty blueprint ensured high commitment and an equal relationship between the partners. Sharing home life made intimacy very likely, but the component of passion might have been missing from such duty-bound relationships. In arranged marriages, passion might never be part of the relationship of a married couple.

During the 1800s, the Industrial Revolution changed the pattern of many people’s lives in ways that affected marriage and family. Work and family became separate spheres. Men worked in jobs in factories and offi ces rather than on farms. Women, too, might work in fac- tories, but the ideal pattern was for men to fulfi ll the Good Provider role (Bernard, 1981) and for women to be mothers and wives. This division led to the Doctrine of the Two Spheres (Welter, 1978), the view that women’s place was home and family life, and men’s role was to go into the outside world and earn a living.

Women’s role as caregivers led to the widespread perception that women were the experts in love: They were the ones who had the tender feelings and experienced the emotions, they were the ones who needed love and depended on men and children for it, and they were the ones most capable of providing love to others. This type of marriage made women depen- dent on men for fi nancial security, so maintaining the love of a husband became essential to women’s fi nancial security.

During the 1920s, women started to take paid jobs outside the home and move into the male world of work. Increasing economic power made women less dependent on men for fi nancial security, which changed the blueprint for marriage to the Companionship model and the feminization of love (Cancian, 1987). This model focused on affection and mutual support, but women were still the experts on love and held the responsibility for the relation- ship: “Marriage was to be all of a woman’s life but only part of a man’s” (Cancian, 1987, p. 34).

The Companionship model for marriage became the standard. Spouses were supposed to love each other before they married; they, not their parents, made the choice.

In terms of Sternberg’s model, the goal was consummate love, with an equal mixture of intimacy, passion, and commitment. However, romantic love was also a possibility—a combination of passion and intimacy but lack of commitment. The divorce rate increased during this time, which provided evidence for the rising lack of commitment under the Companionship blueprint (Cancian, 1987).

244 Relationships

The emphasis on personal compatibility and romance in marriage prompted a different method of selecting marriage partners. Rather families choosing mates for their children or individuals making decisions on an economic basis, men and women started to choose their own partners. Dating arose as a way of fi nding suitable marriage partners for Companion- ship-style marriages.

Dating

Dating began during the 1920s as a form of courtship but has expanded to fulfi ll a variety of other functions, including recreation, status, companionship, sexual exploration, and the skills to form intimate relationships (Quatman, Sampson, Robinson, & Watson, 2001). Along with this form of courtship came a format for dating, which can be analyzed in terms of a script that guides young men’s and women’s behavior on dates (Morr Serewicz & Gale, 2008; Rose & Frieze, 1993). College students’ descriptions of a date adhered to this script. Descriptions of an actual and hypothetical fi rst date showed a great deal of agreement between the two scripts (Rose & Frieze, 1993). However, the scripted roles for women and men differed substantially, with men leading and acting and women following and reacting. The woman’s reactive role includes being concerned about her appearance, participating in the activities her partner planned, and reacting to his sexual advances, all of which matches traditional gender stereotypes. Although they do not have traditional gender stereotypes to follow on fi rst dates, gay men’s and lesbians’ fi rst dates also follow a script that is very similar to that of heterosexual couples (Klinkenberg & Rose, 1994; Rose & Zand, 2002).

Greater variety in dating began to appear after the 1940s, with girls initiating, planning, and paying for dates. Dating has evolved into a variety of activities, including mixed-gender group dating, which is popular among young adolescents (Connolly, Craig, Goldberg, & Pepler, 2004). According to Green’s (2013) headline article, additional changes have occurred, but more systematic evaluations of dating (Eaton & Rose, 2011; Laner & Ventrone, 2000; Morr Serewicz & Gale, 2008) have confi rmed that the script for heterosexual dating has not changed much.

Dating has become an important part of adolescent life, and 57% of young people in the United States between 12 and 17 years old go out on dates regularly; about a third have a steady boyfriend or girlfriend (Fetto, 2003). Older adolescents are more likely to be involved in a romantic relationship than younger adolescents (Meier & Allen, 2009). Younger ado- lescents reported that excitement was more important to their dating choices than did older adolescents, but companionship and emotional involvement were important for all ages of adolescents involved in dating.

Although dating is a highly desired activity for most adolescents, dating presents disad- vantages as well as advantages (Furman, Ho, & Low, 2007). Disadvantages include stress, an increased chance of depression, and a decrease in academic motivation and achieve- ment; advantages include an increase in prestige and self-esteem (Quatman et al., 2001). Both the advantages and disadvantages intensifi ed with more frequent dating. Girls who begin dating at younger ages tend to experience increased risks for problem behaviors such as smoking, alcohol use, and other sensation-seeking behaviors (Martin et al., 2007). Both boys and girls feel similar anxiety and pressures involved in dating and experience similar emotional involvement with their dating partners (Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2006). Having a boyfriend/girlfriend adds to prestige but does not compensate for being unpopular among same-sex peers. Early adolescents who were unpopular with peers and had a boyfriend or girlfriend were more poorly adjusted and showed more behavioral problems than unpopular adolescents who did not (Brendgen, Vitaro, Doyle, Markiewicz, &

Relationships 245

Bukowski, 2002). Therefore, for adolescents, dating and romantic relationships are impor- tant and desirable but not entirely positive experiences.

Many single adults are interested in dating to fi nd a long-term relationship; 68% of respondents in a poll of single adults named love and marriage as a goal (PRN Newswire, 2008). Younger singles were more interested in marriage than older ones, but both older and younger adults have begun to use online dating services as a way to form a relationship. However, about one-fourth of those polled had not been on a date during the past year. Less than two decades ago, few singles went online to fi nd a date, but now over 49 million people in the United States have tried an online dating service (Statistic Brain, 2015). Even older adults use online dating services to seek romantic partners (Malt, 2007). However, most singles continue to rely on friends, family, and coworkers to introduce them to potential partners (PRN Newswire, 2008).

The advent of the ability to meet people online has affected relationships for both adolescents and adults. A nationwide survey of adolescents (Wolak, Mitchell, & Fin- kelhor, 2002) revealed that 14% had formed a close relationship with someone online within the year. Only 2% described their online relationship as a romance, but 71% were cross-gender relationships. Despite widespread publicity about teenagers victim- ized by adult predators online, most teenagers are more cautious than publicity suggests (Wolak, Finkelhor, & Mitchell, 2008). A small minority (17%) qualifi ed as unrestricted Internet users that participated in behaviors that put them at risk of receiving unwanted

Gendered Voices: I Was Terrible at being a Girl

“I was fairly bad at being a girl when I was a child,” a middle-aged woman told me. “I did tomboy-type things. But I was really terrible at it when I was a teenager and trying to date and attract boys. Dating seemed like a game, and the rules were so silly. And I was bad at the game. Flirting was a disaster—I felt so silly and incompetent.

“My mother practically despaired of my ever behaving in ways that would lead to dates. She would give me advice, such as ‘Hide how smart you are, because boys don’t like to date girls who are smarter than they are,’ and, ‘Wait for him to open the door for you.’ I thought both those things were pretty pointless. Why should I hide how smart I was? I had gone to school with most of the guys in my high school since we were all in elementary school, so they knew how smart I was. Besides, if I could have fooled one, I didn’t think that I could have kept up the charade. I wasn’t smart enough to play dumb for all that long. Also, why would I want to date a guy who wanted a dumb girl? Sounded like a poor prospect to me.

“I know that opening doors became an issue in the 1970s feminist movement, but my objections were about 10 years earlier. It just seemed silly to me that a perfectly capable person, me, should inconvenience a guy to open a door. I was more than capable of doing so, and I never saw why I shouldn’t—still don’t for that matter. I now see having doors opened as a courtesy, which is O.K. I open doors for both men and women. There’s prob- ably too much made of that particular issue, but when I was a teenager, it was something my mother warned me about on numerous occasions. I just had a hard time getting the rules of the game—I was terrible at the girl stuff. I am much better at being a woman than I was at being a girl.”

246 Relationships

Gendered Voices: Dating Strategies

Two women in their 30s were talking about their lives, and one told the other that she had gone on a date with a man but didn’t see the point of continuing to do so because it didn’t show much promise of turning into a serious relationship. The other woman tried to con- vince her friend that not all dates were prospective mates, so dating does not necessarily lead to a serious relationship.

These two attitudes refl ect the research about dating, with some adults concentrating on fi nding lifelong partners and others dating as part of an active social life. The reluctant woman remained diffi cult to convince, but her friend told her, “Just think of it as your own catch-and-release program.”

sexual solicitations, but the majority (51%) were cautious Internet users who interacted online only with individuals they knew personally. Nevertheless, young adolescents use the Internet to interact with people they do not know. Some share sexual information, which places them at risk for exploitation, but some fail to perceive these risks (Baumgartner, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2010).

As individuals move into young adulthood, their dating may include casual dating but also tends to become more focused on long-term relationships. What people want in casual dating partners may differ from what they seek for long-term relationships (Sprecher & Regan, 2002). The qualities of warmth and kindness, expressivity and open- ness, and a good sense of humor appeared as commonly valued traits across all types of relationships, but an emphasis on physical attractiveness and social status was high for long-term dating relationships. For short-term relationships, both women and men emphasized physical attractiveness (Li et al., 2013). For long-term relationships, gender differences appear in some characteristics: Women are more interested in partners’ social status, and men care more about physical attractiveness. These gender differences align with the view of mate selection proposed by the sexual selection theory view within evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary psychology is an area of psychology that examines how adaptation pres- sures have shaped contemporary behavior. “Evolutionary psychologists believe that females and males faced different pressures in primeval environments and that the sexes’ differing reproductive status was the key feature of ancestral life that framed sex-typed adaptive problems” (Eagly & Wood, 1999, p. 408). That is, remote prehuman history left gender- related differences that appear today in people’s selection of mates. This view hypothesizes that men’s best strategy was to reproduce as often as possible, whereas women are limited in their reproductive abilities because they can bear a limited number of children. Thus women must select mates who will help them raise their children by providing resources and support (Buss, 1994). Preference for physical attractiveness is one of the factors that evolutionary psychology sees as value of men because attractiveness is a sign of health and reproductive fi tness.

Various tests of these hypotheses have yielded mixed support. Men tend to emphasize the attractiveness of their partner more than women do (Buss, 1994; Li et al., 2013) but not under all circumstances. When women’s access to economic resources are similar to men’s, the gender differences in characteristics important to mate selection decrease (Moore, Cassidy, Smith, & Perrett, 2006). In a study spanning almost 60 years (Buss, Shackelford, Kirk- patrick, & Larsen, 2001), results indicated that men are not alone in valuing looks—both

Relationships 247

men and women have become more equal in valuing attractiveness. In addition, the adaptive advantage of attractiveness is questionable; beauty is not closely related to health and repro- ductive ability (Weeden & Sabini, 2005). Many women considered beautiful have fertility problems. A more reliable sign of reproductive capability is having borne children; however, the evolutionary psychologists do not hypothesize that women with young children are the most attractive potential mates, despite their demonstrated reproductive success.

Evolutionary psychology also predicts that attractiveness should be more important in het- erosexual attraction than for gay or lesbian couples (who are not choosing for reproductive fi tness). Several tests of this hypothesis failed. In one study (Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1987), few differences in partner preference appeared in the descriptions of desirable partner characteristics in male–male, female–female, or male–female couples. All said they wanted romantic partners who were kind, considerate, and physically attractive. In addition, gay men and lesbians reported preferences for characteristics of dating partners and long-term mates that were similar to preferences of heterosexuals (Regan, Medina, & Joshi, 2001). In a study of lesbians (Smith, Konik, & Tuve, 2011), honesty appeared as the most important characteristic of a potential partner.

In emphasizing gender differences in mate selection, evolutionary psychology overlooks the large similarities: Love and mutual attraction rank as the most important reason for mate selection, but intelligence, education, and a pleasing personality also receive high ratings (Buss et al., 2001). Regardless of sexual orientation, people seek similar qualities in roman- tic partners (Li, Valentine, & Patel, 2013; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Thus, evolutionary psychology’s conceptualization of mate selection highlights gender differences but to the neglect of examining the larger similarities that women and men share in mate selection and the infl uence of cultural factors (Eagly & Wood, 2013).

Despite the opinion of adolescents that their dating is not oriented toward mate selection, dating is the process through which most men and women fi nd partners. The patterns of relating to each other established during dating carry over into marriage, but marriage is a major life transition. When people marry, they assume the new roles of husband and wife.

Marriage and Committed Relationships

Marriage is not the only form of committed romantic relationship; couples choose to live together without marrying (Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012). Gay and lesbian couples can marry in some countries, but some choose cohabitation, as do an increasing number of heterosexual couples. Indeed, that number has increased from about 3% of women between ages 15 and 44 in the early 1980s to 11% by 2010. As shown in Figure 9.2 , this increase is dramatic and represents the biggest change in committed relationships. For some couples, cohabitation has replaced marriage, but for many cohabiting couples, cohabi- tation precedes marriage. Its increased social acceptance has made cohabitation a variation in intimate relationships.

Marriage and divorce have also changed over the past 50 years. The rate of marriages declined between 1970 and 2012 (National Vital Statistics System, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Divorce rates more than doubled between 1960 and the 1980s but began to decline in the 1990s. Both trends continue, as shown in Figure 9.3 .

Despite the increased prevalence of cohabitation, the majority of research on gender and committed relationships has focused on marriage. Several styles of marriage now exist, fol- lowing the patterns Cancian (1987) called the Companionship, Independence, and Inter- dependence blueprints. Partners who follow the Companionship blueprint tend to have well-defi ned and separate gender roles, with women responsible for maintaining the love relationship. The Independence blueprint arose during the 1960s, as personal freedom,

248 Relationships

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

N um

be r

in M

ill io

ns

Year

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014

.4 39

.5 23

1. 58

9

2. 85

6

4. 88

1

6. 84

2

7. 91

3

Figure 9.2 Increases in Number of Unmarried Couple Households, 1960–2014

Source: From Unmarried Partners of the Opposite Sex/1, by presence of Children/2: 1960 to the Present, by U.S. Census Bureau, 2013. Retrieved January 7, 2016 from https://census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/uc1.xls

increases in paid employment for women, and the women’s movement led to the belief that marriage should be a partnership of equals. This model emphasizes self-development over commitment and obligations, holding that a relationship is the meeting of two indepen- dent individuals. This blueprint involves more self-development than commitment. The Interdependence blueprint includes fl exible gender roles, but calls for commitment based on acknowledging mutual dependence. Cancian argued that partners are always dependent on each other in marriage and that both the Companionship and Independence blueprints ignore this inevitable interdependence. Table 9.2 shows the three blueprints and the impor- tant characteristics of each.

Sternberg’s (1986) triangular model of love explains these different blueprints for mar- riage with differences in the three components of intimacy, passion, and commitment. Companionship-style marriages would have all three components but not in equal propor- tion for men and women. Under this blueprint, women seek more intimacy than men, producing an unequal balance between such partners. The Independence blueprint is short on the component of commitment, but Interdependent marriages should fi t what Sternberg called consummate love, the equal balance of all three components.

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

R at

e pe

r 1,

00 0

po pu

la tio

n Marriages Divorces

1950 1960 19901970 1980 2000 2010 2014

11 .1

2. 6

8. 5

2. 2

10 .6

3. 5

10 .6

5. 2

9. 8

4. 7

8. 3

4. 1

6. 8

3. 6

6. 9

3. 2

Year

Figure 9.3 Trends in Marriage and Divorce in the United States, 1950–2014

Source: Data from Statistical abstract of the United States, 2006 (125th ed.), Table 72, U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, and “National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Retrieved January 7, 2016 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm.

Table 9.2 Cancian’s Blueprints for Love Relationships

Companionship (devotion to each other)

Independence (self-development)

Interdependence (mutual dependence)

Are traditional gender roles maintained?

Yes No No

Is the relationship stable? Yes No Yes

Who is responsible for maintaining the relationship?

Women Neither partner Both partners

Who develops personal interests? Men Both partners Both partners

250 Relationships

Marriages and other committed relationships may follow any of the blueprints, and con- temporary couples may build any of these various types of relationships. However, a longi- tudinal study of expectations for marriage (Botkin, Weeks, & Morris, 2000) revealed that changes have occurred in women’s conceptualizations of marriage. Between the 1960s and the 1970s, a large shift occurred toward beliefs in egalitarian marriages. After the 1970s, those beliefs have persisted, and the percentage of college women who believe in egalitarian marriage relationships is over 90%. This percentage has implications for several facets of committed relationships, including men’s and women’s concepts of romantic love and mar- riage, communication between partners, division of labor in households, power and confl ict in marriage, and the stability of love relationships.

Concepts of Love and Marriage

Contrary to popular expectation (see According to the Media and According to the Research), men have more traditional concepts of love and marriage and are more romantic than women (Harrison & Shortall, 2011). Although men and women tend to choose partners who have similarly traditional or nontraditional beliefs about gender roles, the man of any given couple is likely to be more traditional than the woman and more likely than women to endorse statements such as “Women’s activities should be confi ned to the home” (Glick & Fiske, 2001). This tendency for men to be more traditional concerning gender roles appears in many cultures (Hatfi eld & Rapson, 1996), but these discrepancies tend to become smaller through the years of marriage by men becoming more egalitarian (Kalmijn, 2005; Pnina, 2009). The continued association of marriage partners diminishes but does not erase men’s more traditional gender beliefs; even after years of marriage, husbands are more likely than wives to hold traditional, conservative beliefs about gender roles.

According to the Media . . . Bad Men Can Be Transformed by Women’s Love

The notion that love can be transformational reaches far beyond fi lms, but movies are fi lled with images of selfi sh, roguish scoundrels transformed into heroes by women’s love. This plot is a movie staple (Aronson & Kimmel, 1997) and an enduring myth (Galician & Merskin, 2007). Probably the ultimate transformation by love was the Beast of Beauty and the Beast , who was transformed—literally—from a monster into a prince by Beauty’s love (“Dr. FUN”, 2004).

These portrayals affect women, who come to believe that their love has the power to transform a bad man into a good one. New York Times columnist Anna Quindlen (reported in Aronson & Kimmel, 1997) asked female readers to choose a mate—either a kind, faithful, careful man or a roguish, self-interested scoundrel, and the vote was overwhelmingly for the nice guy. When she identifi ed one as Ashley Wilkes and the other as Rhett Butler, however, some women felt different. One woman said, “Well, that’s different. . . . Rhett Butler’s never been loved by me. When I love him, he’ll change” (Aronson & Kimmel, 1997, p. 32), demonstrating the belief in the media-based romantic fantasy of the transformational power of their love. One advice columnist proposed this strategy to “nice guys,” suggesting that they act like “bad boys” and make “her believe that she is the one to tame you” (Marder, 2005, p. 40).

Relationships 251

According to the Research . . . Bad Men Are Dangerous to the Women Who Love Them

When women hope to change bad men through love, they may put themselves in danger. Some scoundrels may be changed through love, but many remain danger- ous and harm the women who love them. Women are often reluctant to leave their abusive partners, partly for the reasons that attracted them—the risk taking associated with scoundrels may be seen as evidence of bravery, a characteristic that women fi nd attractive (Rebellon & Manasse, 2004). Women also tell themselves that “he will change” and “this time will be the last time he will hit/be unfaithful to/humiliate me,” which allows women to believe that their abusive partners will change (as they often promise) to become the men these women fantasized.

When they leave their abusive partners, women do not necessarily escape the danger they have experienced. Indeed, leaving an abusive partner puts women at increased risk for harm (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Angry, resentful, or jealous former partners may stalk and do violence to the women who have left them. Indeed, women are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner during a separation than when they lived with these violent men. Staying with them is also dangerous: Women experience more than 1.3 million physical assaults from male partners each year. The romantic notion of transformative love appears in movies; in real life, abusive part- ners are dangerous.

Men’s idealized romantic beliefs extend across ethnic groups in the United States and exist in China (Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002) and Taiwan (Lin & Raghubir, 2003). For example, men are more likely to have romantic beliefs such as “Love lasts forever” and “There is one perfect love in the world for everyone.” Women, however, are more likely to report physical symptoms of being in love, such as feeling like they are “fl oating on a cloud.” Men choose Valentine messages that send messages of praise and commitment to their beloved, whereas women’s Valentines convey love and fi delity (Quintero Gonzalez & Koestner, 2006). In other ways, men and women are similar in idealizing love; both tend to believe that their partners are better looking than they are (Swami, Stieger, Haubner, Voracek, & Furnham, 2009) and that love and mutual attraction are the most important factors for marriage (Fal- coni & Mullet, 2003).

Romanticism does not necessarily make men feel more favorable toward marriage (Mar- quardt, Blakenhorn, Lerman, Malone-Colón, & Wilcox, 2012). Indeed, young, single women expressed a greater desire to get married than comparable men (Blakemore, Law- ton, & Vartanian, 2005). Despite men’s lack of enthusiasm for marriage, married men are physically and mentally healthier than single men (de Vaus, 2002). Married women may experience more satisfaction from marriage than men do (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001), but they also fi nd more stresses in their marriages (Sachs-Ericsson & Ciarlo, 2000).

However, most of the studies of marital satisfaction have questioned only European American participants, which limits generalizability. Young African American adults appear more reluctant to marry than those in other ethnic groups; they expressed more negative opinions about romantic relationships and a mistrust of marriage (Simons, Simons, Lei, & Landor, 2012). Indeed, African Americans tend to be less satisfi ed with their marriages than their White counterparts, with women less satisfi ed than men (Corra, Carter, Knox, & Houvouras, 2006).

252 Relationships

Communication between Partners

The issue of couples’ communication in marriage has received an enormous amount of publicity. Indeed, it has become an industry; John Gray’s (1992) Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus topped the best-seller list for years, prompting sequels, and allowing Gray to hold seminars, train other counselors, and present a Broadway show based on the concept. His proposal that men and women are from different planets originated from his advice to women to communicate with their husbands as if they were beings from another planet. Gray’s characterization is an overstatement of gender differences in communication (Cam- eron, 2007; Perrin et al., 2011), but some differences do exist.

The same-gender differences that researchers have identifi ed in friendship styles also infl uence communication in marriage. Women create emotional intimacy through talk and self-disclosure, whereas men tend to do so through activity. In marriage, sex is often the activity that men use to create intimacy. Cancian (1987) argued that in most contem- porary couples, wives do not count sex as communication or as a method for establish- ing intimacy. Research has confi rmed this difference: Women would like for their male partners to be more emotionally communicative, and men would like more sex (Heyman, Hunt-Martorano, Malik, & Slep, 2009). This difference can produce a discrepancy in what each thinks is the level of communication in their relationship. Cancian’s (1987) survey of couples revealed that wives value talking about feelings more than husbands do, but husbands may feel threatened when their wives want to talk. “Talking about the relationship as she wants to do will feel to him like taking a test that she has made up and he will fail” (p. 93).

The differences between men’s and women’s typical styles of communication have been proposed as a major source of confl ict in marriage (and other relationships). Deborah Tannen (1990) contended that men and women use different communication styles and strategies, even when the goals are similar. Tannen argued that men and women see communication as “a continual balancing act, juggling the confl icting needs for intimacy and independence” (p. 27). She contended that women’s communication is oriented toward intimacy, focusing on forming communal connections with others, whereas men’s communication is oriented toward hierarchy, focusing on attaining and demonstrating status, which is consistent with the styles that develop for same-sex friendships during childhood.

Tannen is correct in believing that communication is a major task for couples, but research has not substantiated her other contentions. In a study in which men and women offered supportive communications (a “feminine” task), few differences appeared between men’s and women’s style of communication (MacGeorge, Graves, Feng, & Gillihan, 2004). Tannen is correct in stating that communication is important for couples. The quality of premarital communication related to adjustment during the fi rst fi ve years of marriage and to divorce; negative communications increased for couples with increas- ing distress and increasing likelihood of divorce (Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, Ragan, & Whitton, 2010).

Another way to analyze communication focuses on communication in terms of dominance and power, which encompass gender-related factors (Barnett & Rivers, 2004; Cameron, 2007). This view holds that men typically have more power, and the powerful communicate in ways that differ from the less powerful. Thus the subordinate role is more important in the communication than sex or even gender role. Indeed, unequal power and status affect many aspects of marriage and intimate relationships.

Relationships 253

Balance of Power

Most dating couples believe that marriages should be an equal balance of power and deci- sion making (Sprecher, 2001; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1997), and these attitudes are shared by married couples, high school students, gay and lesbian couples (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007), and the general population in the United States (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). Indeed, the growth of egalitarian attitudes is a striking trend that developed over the past 40 years, changing societies from a widespread acceptance of patriarchy and men as heads of households to a culture with egalitarian ideals, which has occurred in the United States and many other countries (Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009). The growth of egalitarian ideol- ogy paralleled the trend of employment for women, and access to economic resources is an important factor in power in intimate relationships (Tichenor, 2005a, 2005b). However, the association of men with earnings and high status give men a type of “hidden” power, which forms a cultural background for male dominance. “The marital power equation must take both money and gender into account” (Tichenor, 2005b, pp. 192–193).

The ideal of equal power often fails to be realized in couples’ relationships because the background of traditional gender roles gives men more power than women. Thus it is not surprising that a little more than half of dating couples (Sprecher, 2001) reported that the man had more power. According to an extensive survey of couples in the United States performed by Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz (1983), almost 64% reported an equal balance of power, but 28% of husbands and 9% of wives said they had more power. Other studies have shown a higher percentage of male dominance in heterosexual couples (Peplau & Campbell, 1989; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1997). In addition, men’s decision-making power was higher than their overall power (Sprecher & Felmlee, 1997; Tichenor, 2005a), which may lead to substantial male dominance. Table 9.3 shows the power structure in couples according to three studies.

Even in couples that report an equal balance of power, both partners may not have an equal say in all decisions. What couples report as an equal balance of power may actually be a division of decision making into husbands’ and wives’ domains, with men making fi nancial decisions and women making household decisions. Results of a survey by the Pew Research Center (Jayson, 2008) confi rmed this division: Women made more household decisions. However, this division does not necessarily refl ect wives’ power; wives may be put into the position of making decisions that their husbands consider chores. For example, wives may decide what to have for dinner and what brand of cleaning products to use, and husbands may decide which house to buy and where to live.

Table 9.3 Ideal and Actual Power Structure in Couples

Peplau and Campbell Study (1989)

Blumstein and Schwartz

(1983)

Sprecher and Felmlee Study (1997)

Men Women Couples Men Women

Believe in equal power 87% 95%

Have equal power 42 49 64% 47% 48%

Husband has more power 28 35 29

Wife has more power 9 19 24

254 Relationships

Gendered Voices: When I Got Sober

“The balance of power in my marriage didn’t change when I went to work, but when I got sober,” a woman in her 40s told me. She had been a homemaker for a number of years before she started a career, and she said that earning money didn’t make much of a change in her marriage. By the time she began her job, she had already started drinking heavily, and she continued to do so.

“Everybody took care of me, so I could drink and take drugs and get away with it. So I did. My daughter took care of me for most of her childhood. My husband also let me get away with being drunk most of the time. I was dependent on them, but then I got sober, and things changed.

“When I got sober, I started being able to take care of myself, and my family wasn’t used to it. The balance of power changed in my marriage, and we eventually split up. I was sober and involved in AA, and my husband was still drinking, but that wasn’t the main problem. I started to become independent, and he couldn’t adjust. I realize that it was quite an adjust- ment: I had never taken care of myself—never in my life—and then I started.

“I remember one incident in particular. I was trying to change the batteries in my small tape recorder, and my husband came over and took the recorder out of my hands and did it for me. I thought, ‘I can do that for myself.’ I started thinking that about a lot of things. As I started to become more independent, our marriage changed. In fact, our entire family changed, and most of those changes were good. The kids could come to me rather than go to their father for everything. I became a responsible person. With that responsibility came a growing desire to be independent, and now I am. The marriage became an emotional power struggle, with my growing self-reliance and my husband still trying to be in control.”

One drawback of a majority of research is the educational and ethnic composition of the participants; couples are often college-educated, and most are White. A consideration of other ethnic groups brings other factors relating to power. The concepts of matriarchy and machismo have been associated with African American and Hispanic American families, respectively. A review of research on families, however, found that both patterns of unequal power were more myths than descriptions of the actual balance of power in these families (Peplau & Campbell, 1989). African American families are more likely to be headed by women than White families, but African American couples’ power relationships show similar discrepancies to those in White couples (Cowdery et al., 2009). An equal sharing of power, the most common pattern in a large-scale study (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983), was also the most common pattern in African American couples. For couples with an unequal balance of power, male dominance was more common than female dominance. The same patterns appeared in Mexican American families, with the most common pattern being one of shared power. Despite the prominence of the concepts of matriarchy and machismo, a fairly equal balance of power seems to be the rule for most couples in the United States, regardless of ethnic group. For couples that immigrated to the United States, a struggle occurred between the values of egalitarianism and the tradition of higher male power (Maciel, van Putten, & Knudson-Martin, 2009).

The background of gendered expectations cannot be a factor in power differences for les- bian and gay male couples, but such couples also experience power differentials (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007; Peplau & Spalding, 2000). The differentiating factor for these couples also applies to heterosexual couples: money. For gay men and lesbians, both partners typi- cally are employed, but incomes may be unequal (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Solomon,

Relationships 255

Rothblum, & Balsam, 2005). For gay men, the relationship between money and relationship power was clear: Those with more money had more power. The relationship between money and power was less clear for lesbians, who tried to maintain an equal monetary contribu- tion in their relationship so as to avoid unequal power, and failure to do so was a source of problems for these women.

For heterosexual couples in the United States, paid employment is an important factor in the balance of power in marriage that interacts with gendered expectations of the culture. Earnings have different meanings and thus different impacts to couples in other cultures (Ludwig-Mayerhofer, Allmendinger, Hirseland, & Schneider, 2011). U.S. women who do not have paid employment tend to have less power in their marriages than women who earn money (Deutsch, Roksa, & Meeske, 2003; Steil, 2000). The amount earned is also a factor; husbands who earn more money have more power. However, wives do not gain as much power from their earnings as husbands do (Bittman, England, Folbre, Sayer, & Matheson, 2003; Tichenor, 2005a, 2005b). Women accrue more power to the point that they earn about as much money as their husbands, but ironically, wives who earn more money than their husbands actually have less power in their marriages. This situation occurs because both wives and husbands work toward maintaining the appearance of traditional gender roles in which the wives perform the majority of the household work and child care and the husband manages the fi nances and makes important decisions (Tichenor, 2005a, 2005b). Wives receive appreciation for their earnings, but husbands may minimize wives’ contributions and behave in ways to preserve their dominance. Therefore, wives who earn no income have low power; earning money brings increased power, but achieving marital power through income is diffi cult for women to achieve but easy for men.

Division of Household Labor

The division of household labor has become an area of interest to gender researchers because who does the laundry may reveal information about power and equity in relationships. In addition, performance of household chores is a source of confl ict for couples. As Karen Zagor commented, “Forget the glass ceiling: the new battle of the sexes is over housework” (2006, p. 34).

Traditional gender roles include a division of labor in households, with men working outside the home for wages and women working in the home providing housekeeping and child care. Throughout the 20th century, however, an increasing number of women in industrialized countries joined the paid workforce. Now, a majority of women in the United States and Australia, even those with young children, work for wages outside the home in countries throughout the world (World Bank, 2013).

To maintain equity, the changes in paid labor for women should have prompted a con- comitant change in the division of housework, but those changes have been slow in coming. Researchers who examined division of household labor during the 1970s and 1980s found that employed women still performed the large majority of household labor (Coltrane, 2000). Sociologist Arlie Hochschild (1989) called this arrangement the Second Shift, a situation in which women work for wages outside the home plus perform the majority of housework and child-care chores at home. This arrangement can result in a situation in which women work the equivalent number of hours of two full-time jobs. According to an extensive review completed during the 1980s (Thompson & Walker, 1989), wives did about 3 times more housework and child care than husbands. More recent research (Coltrane, 2000; Cunningham, 2008; Sayer, 2005; Sullivan & Coltrane, 2008) has noted changes, with women doing less and men doing somewhat more household work. However, women still perform more household work and child care than men do.

256 Relationships

Many factors contribute to this continuing inequity. A very important factor is the belief that household work is gendered—some chores are “women’s work” and others are “men’s jobs” (Coltrane, 2000). The fi ve most time-consuming chores (preparing meals, cleaning house, shopping for groceries, washing dishes, and doing laundry) are all work associated with women. Men’s chores tend to be less time-consuming and less frequently required (mak- ing household repairs, taking out the trash, mowing the lawn). As women have moved into paid employment, the household work burden has become more obviously unfair to both men and women (Öun, 2013). This perception may or may not motivate men to do the laundry, depending on a host of relationship and demographic factors. However, women’s participation in the workforce has prompted an increase in men’s participation in household work (Chesters, 2013).

Examining daily activities of women and men in countries around the world reveals that women spend more time than men in household work and child care (Fisher & Robinson, 2011), but men’s participation varies a great deal. That rate is particularly low in Brazil, Italy, Latvia, Spain, and Turkey and the highest in Norway and Sweden.

An examination of gay and lesbian couples reinforces the importance of gendered expec- tations for household work. Gay and lesbian couples cannot use stereotypical associations to determine who does what chores (Boren, 2007; Kurdek, 1993; Peplau & Spalding, 2000). Both gay and lesbian couples tended to share household work more equitably than het- erosexual married couples (Nico & Rodrigues, 2013; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007; Solomon et al., 2005). Gay couples were more likely to split tasks, with each partner performing a set of chores. Lesbian couples were more likely to alternate in sharing tasks, taking turns in performing the same chores. For gay and lesbian couples, communication and negotia- tion were important and tended to result in a more equitable division of household labor (Boren, 2007).

In addition to ideology, family and societal factors contribute to the division of house labor. Women’s employment is an important factor: Employed women do less household work (Chesters, 2013; Coltrane, 2000). Wives who have high-status, highly paid employ- ment (such as professional or managerial jobs) experience increased power in their marriages, which may give these wives the freedom to do less housework (Bittman et al., 2003; Deutsch et al., 2003). High income does not always equate to high power for women (or fewer chores), but earning a high salary is an advantage for women in their marriages (Kan, 2008).

Marital status, education, and presence of children are also factors that affect household work arrangements. Being married increases the amount of household work that women do and decreases the amount men do (Coltrane, 2000), but the amount of time a man spends living on his own before marriage tends to push his attitude toward equal participation in household work (Pitt & Borland, 2008). Education also shows different patterns of infl uence for women and men. Women with higher levels of education tend to do less household work than women with lower levels of education, but men with higher levels of education are likely to do more household work than men with lower levels of education. This pattern occurs in Japan as well as in Western societies (Iwama, 2005). The presence of children increases women’s work and decreases men’s household work in the United States, possibly because women tend to decrease and men tend to increase their employment when children are born (Singleton & Maher, 2004) but possibly because poor parental leave policies in the United States tend to restrict men from child care. In Sweden, with its more accessible parental leave policies, parenthood affects men and women in similar ways (Dribe & Stanfors, 2009). Table 9.4 summarizes some of the factors that relate to sharing of household work.

Men’s participation in household work shows a complex relationship to social class (Coltrane, 2000; Hochschild, 1997). In the United States, ethnicity is a factor in shared household work (Wight, Bianchi, & Hunt, 2013); White and African American couples

Relationships 257

share chores more equitably than Asian American or Hispanic couples. However, confl ict over household work was a common report (Stohs, 2000). The Hispanic American women worked fewer hours per week in their jobs outside the home than African American or Asian American women did, which might lead them to feel that doing more household chores is fair. Hispanic American wives were more likely to enlist their husbands’ help when their con- tributions to household income were higher, which may have made these contributions more essential to the family (Pinto & Coltrane, 2009). However, husbands’ help is not easy to obtain for any level of social class or ethnicity, and the feeling that husbands were not doing a fair share of household work was common and a source of dissatisfaction in relationships.

Within the issue of household work, the concept of inequity is important. A large majority of women and most men believe in an equitable distribution of household work (Apparala, Reifman, & Munsch, 2003; Van Willigen & Drentea, 2001). During the 1990s, researchers began to fi nd that women reported increasing dissatisfaction with an inequitable distribution of household work. Between 25 and 33% of wives believe that their husbands are not doing a fair share of housework and want them to do more. Men tend to agree that they should share the chores, but husbands are reluctant to participate in work that they tend to see as women’s domain and are not eager to give up their leisure time to do chores (Sayer, 2005). Confl icts between work and family obligations and an unfair division of household work present areas increasingly mentioned as sources of couples confl ict (Donaghue & Fallon, 2003; Saginak & Saginak, 2005).

Confl ict and Violence

How couples resolve confl icts refl ects differentials in power. Indeed, the factor of power infl uences partners’ physiological changes during confl icts; the partner with less power exhib- ited a stronger stress response (Loving, Heffner, Kiecolt-Glaser, Glaser, & Malarkey, 2004). The partner who has more power also tends to behave in different ways from the partner whose power is less. Indeed, an examination of confl ict resolution strategies can reveal the power dynamics in a relationship (Gottman & Notarius, 2000). In heterosexual couples, women are more likely to start a marital confl ict discussion and to direct that discussion (Solomon et al., 2005), but women reported that this behavior did not refl ect their feelings

Table 9.4 Factors Related to Division of Household Work

Men Do More Household Work When Men Do Less Household Work When

Wives are employed outside the home Wives are not employed outside the home Wives earn more money than their husbands

Wives’ salaries are similar to their husbands’ salaries Husbands or wives hold traditional gender role beliefs

Wives earn money that husbands consider important to the household

They are married, especially in fi rst marriage

Both wives and husbands have high education levels A fi rst child is born

Chores are “feminine”

Both husbands and wives hold egalitarian beliefs

Husbands believe that it is fair to share household work

Men have lived as bachelors on their own before marrying

Chores are “masculine”

Timing of task is fl exible

258 Relationships

of power (Gottman & Notarius, 2000). To the contrary, women said that their strategies were aimed mostly at avoiding upsetting their husbands. This tendency to avoid confl ict also appeared in a study in which power was a factor (Solomon, Knobloch, & Fitzpatrick, 2004). This study also revealed that large power differentials exert a silencing effect that deterred aggrieved partners from seeking confrontations.

Are women justifi ed in taking steps to avoid confl ict? Men tend to display more coercive styles of confl ict resolution than women (Gottman & Notarius, 2000), which can constitute the fi rst step toward couples’ violence. Historically, domestic violence has been considered appropriate, with women as targets of marital (and even premarital) violence in many soci- eties and throughout many time periods (Bonvillain, 2000; Kar & Garcia-Moreno, 2009). Even though physical abuse is not the most common method of resolving confl icts in con- temporary relationships, violence is not unusual between married, cohabiting, or even dating partners; about 23% of women and 11% of men reported that they had experienced such violence and threats of such violence (Black & Breiding, 2008). Both men and women use violence toward each other (Hamel, 2009; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012; Straus, 2009), and the rate of violence may even be close to equal for women and men in relationships. However, the severity and rate of injury is not; women are much more likely to be injured and to sustain serious injury as a result of domestic violence (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Weston, Temple, & Marshall, 2005).

Many people think of partner violence as men beating women, but results of many studies have indicated that this conceptualization is too simplistic (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). One way to understand the types of couples’ violence is to follow Michael Johnson’s (1995, 2005; Johnson & Leone, 2005) distinction among situational couples violence, inti- mate (formerly called patriarchal ) terrorism, and violent resistance. Johnson used the term situational couples violence to describe a situation in which confl icts become physical fi ghts. This type of violence is all too common, and women may be almost as likely to instigate such violence as men. Intimate terrorism , on the other hand, is a severe form of violence used mostly by men to control their families. Such individuals consider that they should be the unquestioned head of the family and have the right to enact any measure to maintain their dominance. Substantiating evidence appeared in an analysis of men’s motives in battering their partners (Winstok & Perkis, 2009), which indicated that control was an underlying factor in their behavior. Violent resistance occurs when victims fi ght back.

Contrary to what people may perceive, several national surveys of couples in the United States have revealed a decreasing amount of violence between partners. A survey in the 1980s (Straus & Gelles, 1986) showed 16% of homes reported some kind of violence between spouses within the previous year, which represented a 27% decrease from a similar survey in 1975. An examination of crime victimization records (Rennison, 2003) revealed that intimate partner violence decreased by more than 40% between 1993 and 2001. Even with this magnitude of decrease, over 700,000 incidents occur in the United States each year. The majority of these incidents were minor, but discounting the acts of minor violence in domestic confl ict is not wise; even minor violence is predictive of more serious violence between spouses (Feld & Straus, 1989). Furthermore, women who fi ght back are likely to escalate rather than halt the violence directed toward them.

Unfortunately, many people fi nd some level of violence between partners acceptable. About 25% of wives and over 30% of husbands found violence toward each other accept- able under some circumstances (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Younger couples are at higher risk for intimate partner violence than older couples (Caetano, Vaeth, & Ramisetty- Mikler, 2008), and attitudes toward violence as a way to resolve confl ict was a factor in the age difference (Bookwala, Sobin, & Zdaniuk, 2005). With these attitudes, the escalation of minor violence to abuse is not surprising, nor is it likely to change.

Relationships 259

Marriages in which the partners have an equal balance of power (Jewkes, 2002) and countries in which women have better access to education and fi nancial resources (Devries et al., 2013) are less likely to involve partner violence than situations with less equality. The tendency toward equal power in lesbians’ and gay men’s relationships does not exempt them from intimate partner violence. Gay men are the perpetrators and targets for intimate violence at rates somewhat higher than heterosexual couples (Greenwood et al., 2002), but lesbians experience this type of violence at rates similar to heterosexual women (Owen & Burke, 2004). Regardless of nationality or sexual orientation, or which partner has more power, both partners are more likely to be the targets of violence in couples with a dominant and a subordinate partner. Inequalities of power promote violent confl ict in couples, putting both partners at increased risk.

Therefore, a connection exists among the issues of power, confl ict, and violence in com- mitted relationships. Power affects confl ict and confl ict management. When confl ict leads to violence, women are about as likely as men to behave violently. However, women are more likely than men to be injured in a violent confrontation. As long as women and men con- tinue to fi nd physical violence acceptable as a confl ict resolution strategy, intimate partner violence will continue.

Stability of Relationships

Relationships that involve physical violence are less stable than those with no violence (Beck, Anderson, O’Hara, & Benjamin, 2013), but some of these violent relationships endure with partners relatively satisfi ed (Williams & Frieze, 2005). Many people fi nd it diffi cult to imagine why a woman would stay with a man who repeatedly abuses her, but some women do (Eisikovits, Winstok, & Gelles, 2002). Abusive men often work to isolate their partners from family and friends, depriving them of social support and alternative residences (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999; Jewkes, 2002). Abused women who are unemployed, with few marketable skills and young children in need of fi nancial support, may feel as though they have no options except to stay in the relationship, no matter how abusive. With the rise of shelters for women to escape abusive homes, abused women have an option, and thousands take this option each year.

Abusive relationships are an extreme case of confl ict in love relationships, but all couples experience some level of confl ict. Experiencing confl icts is related to decreased satisfaction in relationships (Cramer, 2002). The number of confl icts mattered but the magnitude did not; either minor or major confl icts contributed to lower ratings of satisfaction with the relationship, but the strategies for resolving confl icts are more strongly related to satisfac- tion and stability. John Gottman (1991, 1998) and his colleagues (Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman, 1994) have investigated the elements and styles of confl icts that strengthen relationships as well as those that signal problems. They have even managed to reduce these factors to a predictive equation that has over 90% accuracy in predicting divorce (Gottman, Swanson, & Swanson, 2002).

Surprisingly, Gottman’s results have indicated that marital satisfaction is not a strong pre- dictor of separation but that the level of physical arousal during confl ict is. That is, couples whose heart rates, blood pressure, sweating, and physical movement during an argument were elevated were more likely to separate within the next 3 years than couples with lower levels of arousal. Couples whose physiological reactions were calmer tended to have mar- riages that improved over a 3-year span.

Behavioral factors also predicted divorce, including patterns of interaction between part- ners. Husbands’ tendency to be unresponsive (“stonewall”) by withdrawing emotionally and avoiding eye contact with their wives during an argument predicted dissolution of the

260 Relationships

marriage (Gottman, 1991; Gottman & Driver, 2005; Gottman & Silver, 2000). Wives’ tendency to complain, criticize, and behave defensively also constituted a danger signal. The couples headed toward separation also showed different facial expressions during their con- versations, including the wives’ expressions of disgust and the husbands’ “miserable smile,” a smile that affects only the mouth, as when people try to “put on a happy face.” Gottman concluded that these patterns of interaction worked toward driving couples apart rather than allowing them to resolve confl icts. Indeed, many of the couples that exhibited these interaction patterns were in the process of dissolving their relationship emotionally, and their physiological reactions, confl ict tactics, and facial expressions signaled their impending separation. These fi ndings apply to gay and lesbian couples as well as to heterosexual ones (Gottman et al., 2003). Table 9.5 summarizes these factors.

The institution of marriage often holds couples together when they might otherwise dissolve their relationships, which means that cohabiting heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples in the United States are more likely to end their relationships than married people are (Kurdek, 2004, 2008), and same-sex couples in Great Britain are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples (Lau, 2012). Changing laws regarding same-sex marriage may change these statistics over time.

However, same-sex couples tend to exhibit similar levels of satisfaction and adjustment as well as better confl ict resolution skills than married couples. Gay men and lesbians can also have stable, long-term relationships: 76% of lesbian couples and 81% of gay male couples were together during 12 years of assessments (Kurdek, 2004). In a study of heterosexual and same-sex couples who had stayed together for an average of 30 years (Mackey, Diemer, & O’Brien, 2000), several factors were related to psychological intimacy and continuation of the rela- tionship, including lack of confl ict, method of handling confl ict, quality of communication,

Photo 9.3 All couples experience confl ict, but how they resolve the confl ict is a key to the stability of their relationship.

Relationships 261

equity, and expression of affection. Lesbians reported their relationships as closer than did gay men or heterosexuals.

According to Sternberg’s (1986, 1987) triangular theory of love, relationships that have only one of the components should lack stability, and the commitment component is clearly the most strongly related to relationship stability. Commitment “can be essential for getting through hard times and for returning to better ones. In ignoring it or separating it from love, one may be missing exactly that component of loving relationships that enables one to get through the hard times as well as the easy ones” (Sternberg, 1986, p. 123). In a study of reasons that people stayed married, loving one’s partner was the most common reason that participants gave (Previti & Amato, 2003).

Dissolving Relationships

Relationships go through phases of attraction, development, and sometimes dissolution. All relationships are subject to these stages, but people expect the dissolution of casual relationships and believe that such breakups pose no problems for the people involved. Unfortunately, even relationships with commitment sometimes fail to endure. When close friendships or love relationships dissolve, the two individuals are not the only ones affected. As Susan Sprecher and her colleagues (Sprecher, Felmlee, Schmeeckle, & Shu, 2006, p. 457) noted: “No breakup occurs on an island.” The end of such relationships poses problems for both people involved as well as for their social network of friends and family.

Love relationships without institutional support, such as cohabitation, are more likely to break up than are marriages. Even couples that have cohabited before marriage are more likely to divorce than those who did not (Copen et al., 2012). In three studies of couples (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 2004; Lau, 2012), married couples were more likely to remain together than gay or lesbian couples. Figure 9.4 shows the separation rates for different types of couples over time. As marriage has become an option for same-sex couples, research has begun to show that marriage also gives stability to these unions (Rosenfeld, 2014); same-sex couples who marry stay together at a rate similar to heterosexual married couples.

The institutional support for marriage is no guarantee of stability. Although marriages have never been permanent, divorce increased dramatically since the 1950s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), hit a high level in the 1980s, decreased slightly, and decreased somewhat in

Table 9.5 Factors Related to Marital Separation

Factor Prediction

Marital satisfaction No strong relationship to separation

Physical arousal during confl ict—heart rate, blood pressure, sweating, moving

Higher levels predict increased likelihood of separation; calmer reactions predict strengthening of relationship

Wives being overly agreeable Increased likelihood of separation

Husbands participate in housework Increased satisfaction for husbands and wives; increased health in husbands

Husbands stonewall Increased likelihood of separation

Wives criticize and complain Increased likelihood of separation

Husbands disagree with wives Increased likelihood of separation

Couples are defensive Increased likelihood of separation

Facial expressions during confl ict—“miserable smile,” wives’ disgust, husbands’ fear

Increased likelihood of separation

262 Relationships

recent years (see Figure 9.3 ). Even lengthy marriages end in divorce. Indeed, divorce during middle and older age—“gray divorce’—has become a notable trend in the United States (Brown & Lin, 2012). The divorce rate for people over age 50 doubled between 1990 and 2010. This trend has shifted the majority of older people who live alone from those who are widowed to those who are divorced.

The high divorce rate is not necessarily a condemnation of marriage as much as the failure of women and men to fulfi ll their vision of what they believe marriage should be. Compared to dating and married couples, engaged couples expressed an idealized vision of marriage (Bonds-Raacke, Bearden, Carriere, Anderson, & Nicks, 2001), which may lead couples to unrealistic expectations that build a foundation for confl ict. As research on relationship stability has indicated (Gottman, 1991; Gottman & Driver, 2005; Gottman & Notarius, 2000), how partners handle confl icts in the early years of marriage is a predictor of divorce.

Several intensive studies tell stories about the effects of divorce. One study, by Catherine Riessman (1990), was an interview study of divorced men and women; another interview study (Thomas & Ryan, 2008) focused on women; yet another interview study (Canham, Mahmood, Stott, Sixsmith, & O’Rourke, 2014) explored the reasons and aftermath of divorce among older adults. A study by Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly (2002) was a quantitative study, the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage, which lasted over 30 years and followed almost 1,400 families. These studies have revealed similarities in the factors that underlie divorces and the processes of adaptation and recovery. These studies show that men and women experience similar feelings, but they also show substantial gender differences in the process of divorce.

Most people who divorce keep their ideas of marriage and what it should be (Canham et al., 2014; Riessman, 1990; Sandfi eld, 2006). That idea often matches what Cancian called the Companionship blueprint for marriage. When they separated and divorced, women and

Figure 9.4 Separation Rates for Couples over 18-Month, 5-Year, and 12-Year Periods

Source: The data for the 18-month period are from American Couples, by Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, 1983, New York: Pocket Books. The data for 5-year period are from “Relationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence from Heterosexual Married, Gay Cohabiting, and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples,” by Lawrence Kurdek, 1998, Journal of Mar- riage and Family, 60, pp. 553–568. The data from 12-year period are from “Are Gay and Lesbian Cohabitating Couples Really Different from Heterosexual Married Couples?” by Lawrence Kurdek, 2005, Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, pp. 880–900.

Relationships 263

men usually failed to question the blueprint. Rather, they found fault in their own marriages, blaming either their former spouses or themselves for failing to fulfi ll some component of their marital ideal.

Gendered Voices: I Wasn’t Any of His Business Anymore

A woman, talking with her friend about her ex-husband, said, “I saw Ed at a country western club last Friday night. He was there with some of his friends, drinking. I went there because I wanted to get out and have some fun. He didn’t see me at fi rst, and then he kept looking in my direction, trying to make sure he was seeing right.

“Finally, he came over to me and said, ‘What are you doing in a place like this? You shouldn’t be here.’ I told him that what I did wasn’t any of his business anymore. We were divorced, and I could do what I wanted. I didn’t need his permission to go to a bar, and he didn’t have any right to say anything to me. He said some pretty ugly things, calling me a bitch and a whore, and I just walked away from him. I had enough of his ordering me around when we were married.”

Divorced men and women described failures to live up to their ideals, but their descriptions showed some variation (Riessman, 1990). Both saw failures in achieving emotional intimacy, but they attributed the failures to different reasons. Women tended to say that their husbands had not talked and shared feelings with them as they had expected. They claimed that their husbands just didn’t communicate with them, and research has confi rmed these problems as divorce risks (Markman et al., 2010). Divorced men largely agreed with this assessment, blaming themselves for not communicating with their former wives and maintaining that they had diffi culties in talking about their feelings. Divorced men also believed that their wives had failed to give them emotional support, which they tended to defi ne as physical affection. The working-class men repeatedly said that their wives were not waiting “with their arms open and a kiss” when the men came home from work (Riessman, 1990). These men felt that the absence of such behaviors indicated that their marriages lacked emotional intimacy. These gender- related differences illustrate the talk-based versus action-based styles that are typical of women and men and highlight the importance of these differences in the dissolution of relationships.

Gendered Voices: My Ex-Wife Acts Like We’re Still Married

“Although we were divorced three years ago, my ex-wife acts like we’re still married,” a man in his mid-30s said. “I understand why she calls me when something involves the kids, but she calls me when she needs things done to the house.” He considered these requests inappropriate because he and his ex-wife had both remarried. “I can’t help it if she married a wuss who can’t fi x the toilet. I don’t think she should be calling me to do the chores. We’re not married anymore, and taking care of her house is not part of my job now.”

The motives that lead to divorce show some changes but few differences for older versus younger people. Partners still believe that extramarital affairs, alcoholism, and physical abuse are reasons to separate (Canham et al., 2014; Thomas & Ryan, 2008), but these are not the most common reasons that push people toward divorce. Instead, failures to meet partners’ relationship expectations, lack of shared interests, and problems in balancing work and fam- ily demands have become more common motives for divorce (Canham et al., 2014; de Graaf &

264 Relationships

Kalmijn, 2006). With the growing acceptability of divorce, even relatively small problems combined with a failure to receive rewards make divorce a consideration (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

People often ask “Why would a couple who has been married for over 20 years get divorced?” An interview study (Canham et al., 2014) asked older adults who had divorced to talk about some of the reasons that prompted their divorce; their reasons were similar to those listed by younger individuals. For some partners, dissatisfaction was a recurring theme that began early in their relationship. Communication problems, power imbalance, and confl ict and abuse all appeared as factors that contributed to the decision to divorce, but partners also described how they had drifted apart in interests and goals. Unhappy couples may stay together for economic reasons or for their children. However, for dual-earner couples with grown children, the reasons to stay in an unhappy marriage dissipate, which constituted the underlying factor for some of these divorces. Similar to younger adults, these older adults reported both negative and positive aspects to the divorce. One difference was sex; other than sexual abuse by a partner, the older people did not mention sexual problems as an underlying cause of their divorce.

The divorced people in both longitudinal studies with younger adults (Riessman, 1990; Thomas & Ryan, 2008) mentioned problems with sex in connection with their divorce. The men mentioned dissatisfaction with the frequency of sex and resentment over their wives’ refusal to have sex as often as husbands wanted. Sexual affairs were a factor in 34% of the divorced people in Riessman’s study, and both women and men believed that affairs had been the impetus for the dissolution of their marriage. The women took their own as well as their husbands’ affairs as a sign of emotional betrayal, signaling that their marriage was over. The men did not necessarily share that attitude, but they also acknowledged that affairs had been a factor in their divorces. Wives found it diffi cult to forgive husbands’ affairs, and wives who had had affairs tended to leave their husbands for their lovers.

These feelings suggest that women might be the ones to initiate breakups, and fi ndings from the Virginia Longitudinal Study and a study in Australia (Hewitt, 2009) confi rmed this fi nding. Women initiate about two-thirds of the breakups of heterosexual couples but are less likely to do so if they have very young children. The likelihood of women initiat- ing breakups may be due to women’s tendency to be more vigilant about monitoring their relationships; they know when something is going wrong more quickly than men do. Alter- natively, women’s willingness to divorce may refl ect their increased incomes, which allow them to leave unhappy marriages. This situation highlights a substantial asymmetry in love relationships. Women fall out of love more quickly and fall in love more slowly than men do.

Women and men both experience different lives after the dissolution of a love relationship. For partners who have been married or have cohabited, the dissolution of the relationship is usually fi nancially as well as emotionally diffi cult (Avellar & Smock, 2005; Gadalla, 2009; Zagorsky, 2005). Women’s lower earning power coupled with their custody of children tends to create fi nancial hardship, whereas men’s fi nancial position may improve after divorce. Women’s increasing earning power has moderated the fi nancial impact of divorce (McKeever & Wolfi nger, 2001), but women continue to experience fi nancial disadvantage up to 3 years after divorce (Gadalla, 2009).

Many men and women search for and fi nd positive as well as negative consequences as a result of the divorce experience (Bevvino & Sharkin, 2003; Riessman, 1990; Thomas & Ryan, 2008). Both said they enjoyed the freedom that came with divorce, but their feelings had different sources: Women liked being free from their husbands’ dominance, whereas the men liked being free of their wives’ expectations. Women were more likely than men to fi nd something positive about the experience, but many women experienced grief and depres- sion related to their divorce (Sakraida, 2005). Despite the depression, they also discovered

Relationships 265

heightened self-esteem and feelings of competence through performing activities their hus- bands had done when they were married (Riessman, 1990).

Men are more likely to “lose” in the divorce (Baum, 2004). Dissolution of marriage often deprives men not only of companionship and emotional support from their wives but also of their children and feeling of being a family (Bailey, 2007) and of their network of friends and family (a network typically maintained by women). Women tend to use these support networks after divorce, but men do not, which may be related to men’s increased likelihood of experienc- ing health problems, including early death, after divorce (Sbarra, Law, & Portley, 2011). The men in Riessman’s (1990) study were surprised at the diffi culties of being alone, but they also described feelings of satisfaction from developing competencies in domestic chores.

Divorced men and women are likely to feel displeased with their ex-spouses rather than with marriage itself, and most showed their endorsement of marriage by remarrying (Heth- erington & Kelly, 2002). Cohabiting presents an alternative to marriage that has become increasingly common among divorced people (Wu & Schimmele, 2005). Second marriages (and cohabitations) may differ from fi rst marriages. People in second marriages endorsed an equal sharing of power, and women tend to negotiate relationships with more equal power, greater access to resources, and more equitable sharing of household labor than their fi rst marriages (Clarke, 2005). These marriages, however, show many more similarities than dif- ferences (Allen, Baucom, Burnett, Epstein, & Rankin-Esquer, 2001). Second marriages are even more likely to end in divorce than fi rst marriages, which Riessman (1990) interpreted as an increased unwillingness to endure an unhappy relationship combined with the knowledge that divorce offered positive as well as negative experiences.

Considering Diversity

The blueprints for marriage have changed over time in the United States (Cancian, 1987). In the 1800s, the Family Duty blueprint was the rule; couples often entered arranged marriages for economic reasons, and their feelings revolved around a sense of duty to each other and their children. Looking further back into history and to other cultures, Nancy Bonvillain (2000) analyzed gender and marriage in a variety of settings, contrasting male-dominated and egalitarian societies. Her analysis pointed to economics as an important factor in the power that women have in their marriages and in society in general.

In societies in which women contribute signifi cantly to household subsistence, the women have power in their personal relationships. For example, the Ju/’hoansi are a society of forag- ing people who live in Botswana and Namibia. Gender roles and behaviors vary in Ju/’hoansi society, but women’s foraging is essential to band survival. This contribution is refl ected in Ju/’hoansi women’s full participation in social decisions. The Inuit of Arctic North America are also a foraging band society, but their culture is male dominated. An economic analysis reveals that the scarcity of foods results in men’s hunting as the main source of food; women are forbidden to hunt. Consequently, women’s contributions are perceived as less important, and their status is lower.

In tribal societies, both egalitarian and male-dominated societies have existed, and the eco- nomic analysis continues to maintain validity (Bonvillain, 2000). When Europeans arrived in North America, the Iroquois allowed women access to economic resources, whereas the Yanomamo of Brazil and Venezuela were a tribal society that did not allow such access. These two societies showed the predicted patterns of egalitarianism and male dominance, respec- tively. In even larger and more complex groups such as state and industrialized societies, the restriction of economic production to men gives them power and puts women in the position of subordinates in many ways, including in marriages. A comparative study of 27 countries (Cha & Thébaud, 2009) supported this analysis, showing a relationship between economic

266 Relationships

support for men as breadwinners and men’s gender ideology—greater structural support for men as breadwinners was related to men’s lower endorsement of egalitarian beliefs.

Bonvillain contended that when women’s contributions are seen as minor, their status is lower, resulting in little power in their relationships. Lack of power manifests itself in the inability to leave unhappy marriages or to avoid physical abuse. Consistent with the economic viewpoint, participation in the labor force is a signifi cant predictor of divorce in nations around the world. An analysis of 71 countries on six continents (Greenstein & Davis, 2006) revealed that paid employment was a predictor of countries’ divorce rate; countries with high divorce rates tend to be industrialized countries in which women comprise a high percentage of the paid labor force. Figure 9.5 presents some examples of the varying divorce rate around the world.

Australia

Belarus

Belgium

Canada

Chile

China

Costa Rica

Cuba

Denmark

France

Germany

Greece

Guatemala

Iran

Italy

Japan

Jordan

Mexico

Netherlands

Poland

Russia

Singapore

South Korea

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

1 2 3 4 5

Divorce Rate per 1,000 Population

2.8

2.0

2.2

2.2

2.3

1.8

4.7

1.7

2.0

1 2 3 4 5

2.2

2.1

2.1

1.8

4.1

2.9

0.2

2.5

2.6

2.8

2.3

1.2

0.2

1.8

0.9

2.1

2.6

0.8

Figure 9.5 Divorce Rate in Selected Nations

Source: Data from Demographic Yearbook, 2012, by United Nations, 2012, Table 24. Retrieved November 15, 2015 from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2012/Table24.pdf

Relationships 267

A cross-cultural analysis of violence against women (Heise et al., 1999; Shahidulla & Nana Derby, 2009; United Nations, 2010) also related domestic violence to societies with strong male dominance. Consistent with Bonvillain’s view, these analyses cited fi nancial dependence and restriction of access to resources as contributors to domestic violence and changes in these situations to laws against such abuse. Examining domestic violence against women across cultures revealed a great deal of variation in the percentage of women who reported abuse (United Nations, 2010). In cultures that endorse men’s right to control women and to “discipline” wives, the rates of abuse were high—over 40%. In such societies, men (and sometimes women, too) fi nd a variety of justifi cations for abuse, including failure to obey husbands’ orders, asking for money, failure to take care of children, suspicion of adultery, or refusing sex. Other societies set stricter limits on domestic violence, and these societies have a lower rate of reported partner violence. Indeed, domestic abuse does not occur in all societies.

A growing worldwide campaign against this type of abuse has arisen. Since 1993, when the United Nations General Assembly passed the Declaration on the Elimination of Vio- lence against Women, many countries have developed initiatives to curb domestic violence. The modernization that has occurred in many parts of the world has prompted changes in attitudes and in laws related to partner violence (Shahidulla & Nana Derby, 2009). Not only have such laws appeared in North America and Western Europe but Brazil, India, Japan, Bangladesh, and Ghana have formulated similar laws, and freedom from violence at home is coming to be seen as a human right.

Summary

Sternberg’s triangular model of relationships provides a framework for understanding all relationships, including friendships and love relationships. Gender differences in friendship styles appear early in development; children voluntarily segregate themselves according to gender before age 5 years. Girls tend to associate in small groups, whereas boys play in larger groups with more of a hierarchical organization.

Adolescents are more concerned with developing emotional intimacy in their relation- ships, but girls emphasize this aspect of relationships more than boys. Men fi nd it diffi cult to develop such relationships, especially with other men. Instead, they have buddies with whom they form activity-based relationships. When young men and women form couples, these relationships often decrease the amount of time and emotional energy they have to devote to friends. Some research has indicated that both men and women have a fl exibility of friendship styles, and they use different styles to relate to male and female friends. Cross- gender nonsexual friendships are a recent phenomenon. Both men and women acknowledge that such relationships are possible (and even desirable) but require special rules.

Love relationships currently form through dating, an activity that fi rst arose during the 1920s as a response to changing patterns of mate selection. Dating has now become not only a method of courting, but also a forum for recreation, socialization, and sexual explora- tion. Adolescents tend to choose dates similar to future mates, and men and women prefer partners who are warm and kind, expressive, intelligent, and physically attractive. People with either heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation describe their preferred partners in similar ways.

Currently, marriage and other committed relationships can follow several different blueprints: Companionship, Independence, and Interdependence. The Companionship blueprint involves separate gender roles and emphasizes the woman’s role in maintaining a love relationship. Both the Independence and Interdependence blueprints emphasize self- development for both men and women, but they differ in the emphasis on commitment.

268 Relationships

Gender researchers have explored several issues in love relationships, including beliefs about love, communication, division of household labor, power and confl ict, and relation- ship stability. Men are more romantic in their conceptualization of love than women are, and marriage tends to benefi t them more, but they are not necessarily happier with their mar- riages. Communication is a major factor for relationships, and a great deal of publicity has focused on differences in men’s and women’s communication. However, research indicates that differences are more likely due to power differentials than to gender. The balance of power in marriage generally favors men, both because they have greater economic resources and because society accords men more power. Even when women make as much or more money than their husbands, they do not have equal power.

The division of household labor refl ects the power difference; women perform far more of this work than men, even when women have paid employment outside the home. Women have become increasingly dissatisfi ed with this inequitable division, and men have begun to do more household work, but some inequity continues and produces confl ict. Couples experience confl ict from many sources, but some marital confl ict results in violence. Men and women both behave violently toward each, but women are more likely than men to be injured as a result of relationship violence.

Violence decreases the stability of relationships, but does not necessarily end them. Stable love relationships tend to occur in couples with similar attitudes and values, and the com- mitment factor in marriage produces greater stability than in other love relationships. But marriages dissolve. In the United States, divorce increased dramatically during the 1980s and then decreased during the 1990s. People who have divorced tend to see the fault in their ex-spouses rather than in the institution of marriage. Although divorce brings fi nancial and emotional problems, most women and men also fi nd positive factors in divorce. Most remarry or cohabit, and some evidence suggests that both women and men form more equitable second marriages.

Across time and cultures, many patterns of marriage have existed. Analyzing the economic contributions of women in a variety of societies leads to the conclusion that women experience more egalitarian relationships and roles in societies in which they make signifi cant economic contributions. Male-dominated cultures restrict women’s access to resources, tend to establish restrictive marriages, allow fewer options for women to leave marriage, and condone greater intimate partner violence. Growing labor force participation and a worldwide campaign against domestic violence is in the process of changing male–female relationships around the world.

Glossary

companionate love a combination of commitment and intimacy without passion. gross motor skills skills involving use of large muscles of the body, producing large move-

ments, such as throwing, kicking, running, and jumping. homophobia the unreasonable fear and hatred of homosexuality. machismo a Spanish word meaning strong and assertive masculinity and implying complete

male authority. matriarchy a family pattern in which women are dominant or a pattern in which women

are the head of the household due to the father’s absence.

Suggested Readings

Berndt, Thomas J. (2004). Children’s friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspectives on their development and their effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50 , 206–222. One of the leading researchers in the area of children’s friendships provides a thorough review of this research

area over the past 50 years.

Relationships 269

Gottman, John; & Silver, Nan. (2000). Seven Principles for Making Marriages Work . New York: Crown. Gottman is one of the world’s leading researchers on couples’ relationships. His popular book draws from

his research on factors related to success and failure in marriage and formulates ways to make marriages work.

Hatfi eld, Elaine; & Rapson, Richard L. (1996). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives . Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hatfi eld and Rapson’s book examines love and sex across contemporary cultures as well as delving into history

for additional examples. They consider attraction, the diffi culties of forming relationships, and the problems involved in ending romantic relationships. Their cross-cultural and historical review adds a valuable (and fasci- nating) point of view to the understanding of passionate love.

Rudman, Laurie A.; & Mescher, Kris. (2012). Feminism and romance. In M. A. Plaudi (Ed.), The psychology of love (Vol. 3, pp. 109–129). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Feminism and romance are often considered incompatible, but Rudman and Mescher’s analysis demonstrates

how individuals who hold feminist values have an advantage in forming good relationships.

Suggested Websites

The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) maintains a website with many resources, including information about child development. One section focuses on girls’ friendships (http://www.pbs.org/parents/parenting/ raising-girls/friends-social-life/), which charts age-related development and discusses pitfalls and problems that arise in girls’ friendships. Interestingly, the section about raising boys has no similar information on boys’ friendships (although it contains good information about issues that boys face throughout their early development).

John Gray’s Mars & Venus approach to romantic relationships has been infl uential in our culture but draws heavily on gender stereotypes but not so much on research. An article by Hara Estroff Marano, reprinted on Psychotherapy.net (https://www.psychotherapy.net/article/gottman-and-gray) reviews Gray’s work, approach to couples’ counseling, and credentials in contrast with John Gottman, possibly the most important research psy- chologist to have studied relationship stability and dissolution.

QueenDom’s website includes Relationships as a topic (http://www.queendom.com/tests/testscontrol. htm?s=74), with over a dozen relationships tests.

References

Aboud, Frances E.; Mendelson, Morton J.; & Purdy, Kelly T. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27 , 165–173.

Allen, Elizabeth Sandin; Baucom, Donald H.; Burnett, Charles K.; Epstein, Norman; & Rankin-Esquer, Lynn A. (2001). Decision-making power, autonomy, and communication in remarried spouses compared with fi rst-married spouses. Family Relations, 50 , 326–334.

Apparala, Malathi L.; Reifman, Alan; & Munsch, Joyce. (2003). Cross-national comparison of attitudes toward fathers’ and mothers’ participation in household tasks and childcare. Sex Roles, 48 , 189–203.

Aronson, Amy; & Kimmel, Michael. (1997). The children’s hour. Tikkun, 12 , 32–33. Avellar, Sarah; & Smock, Pamela J. (2005). The economic consequences of the dissolution of cohabiting unions.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 , 315–327. Bailey, Sandra J. (2007). Unraveling the meaning of family: Voices of divorced nonresidential parents. Marriage

and Family Review, 42 (1), 81–102. Barnett, Rosalind; & Rivers, Caryl. (2004). Same difference: How gender myths are hurting our relationships, our

children, and our jobs . New York: Basic Books. Baum, Nehami. (2004). On helping divorced men to mourn their losses. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 58 ,

174–185. Baumgartner, Susanne E.; Valkenburg, Patti M.; & Peter, Jochen. (2010). Assessing causality in the relationship

between adolescents’ risky sexual online behavior and their perceptions of this behavior. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 39 (10), 1226–1239.

Beck, Connie J. A.; Anderson, Edward R.; O’Hara, Karey L.; & Benjamin, G. Andrew H. (2013). Patterns of intimate partner violence in a large, epidemiological sample of divorcing couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 27 (5), 743–753.

270 Relationships

Benenson, Joyce F.; & Christakos, Athena. (2003). The greater fragility of females’ versus males’ closest same-sex friendships. Child Development, 74 , 1123–1129.

Bernard, Jessie. (1981). The good-provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist, 36 , 1–12. Berndt, Thomas J. (2004). Children’s friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspectives on their development

and their effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50 , 206–222. Bevan, Jennifer L.; & Samter, Wendy. (2004). Toward a broader conceptualization of jealousy in close relation-

ships: Two exploratory studies. Communication Studies, 55 , 14–28. Bevvino, Deborah L.; & Sharkin, Bruce S. (2003). Divorce adjustment as a function of fi nding meaning and

gender differences. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 39 , 81–97. Bittman, Michael; England, Paula; Folbre, Nancy; Sayer, Liana; & Matheson, George. (2003). When does gen-

der trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology, 109 , 186–216. Black, M. C.; & Breiding, M. J. (2008). Adverse health conditions and health risk behaviors associated with

intimate partner violence—United States, 2005. MMWR, 57 (5), 113–117. Blakemore, Judith E. Owen; Lawton, Carol A.; & Vartanian, Lesa Rae. (2005). I can’t wait to get married:

Gender differences in drive to marry. Sex Roles, 53 , 327–335. Blumstein, Philip; & Schwartz, Pepper. (1983). American couples . New York: Pocket Books. Bonds-Raacke, Jennifer M.; Bearden, Erica S.; Carriere, Noelle J.; Anderson, Ellen M.; & Nicks, Sandra D.

(2001). Engaging distortions: Are we idealizing marriage? Journal of Psychology, 135 , 179–184. Bonvillain, Nancy. (2000). Women and men: Cultural constructs of gender (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall. Bookwala, Jamila; Sobin, Joelle; & Zdaniuk, Bozena. (2005). Gender and aggression in marital relationships: A

life-span perspective. Sex Roles, 52 , 797–806. Boren, Justin. (2007). Negotiating the division of household labor in same sex romantic relationships . Paper pre-

sented at the National Communications Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved August 19, 2016 from http:// www.academia.edu/854322/Negotiating_the_Division_of_Household_Labor_in_Same_Sex_Romantic_ Partnerships

Botkin, Darla R.; Weeks, M. O’Neal; & Morris, Jeanette E. (2000). Changing marriage role expectations: 1961–1996. Sex Roles, 42 , 933–942.

Brendgen, Mara; Vitaro, Frank; Doyle, Anna Beth; Markiewicz, Dorothy; & Bukowski, William M. (2002). Same-sex peer relations and romantic relationships during early adolescence: Interactive links to emotional, behavioral, and academic adjustment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48 , 77–103.

Brown, Susan L.; & Lin, I-Fen. (2012). The gray divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults, 1990–2010. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 67 (6), 731–741.

Buss, David M. (1994). The evolution of desire . New York: Basic Books. Buss, David M.; Shackelford, Todd K.; Kirkpatrick, Lee A.; & Larsen, Randy J. (2001). A half century of mate

preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 , 491–503. Cable, Noriko; Bartley, Mel; Chandola, Tarani; & Sacker, Amanda. (2013). Friends are equally important to

men and women, but family matters more for men’s well-being. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 67 (2), 166–177.

Caetano, Raul; Vaeth, Patrice; & Ramisetty-Mikler, Suhasini. (2008). Intimate partner violence victim and perpetrator characteristics among couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 23 (6), 507–518.

Caldwell, Mayta A.; & Peplau, Letitia Anne. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 8 , 721–732.

Calmes, Christine A.; & Roberts, John E. (2008). Rumination in interpersonal relationships: Does co-rumination explain gender differences in emotional distress and relationship satisfaction among college students? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32 (4), 577–590.

Cameron, Deborah. (2007). The myth of Mars and Venus . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cancian, Francesca M. (1987). Love in America: Gender and self-development . Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press. Canham, Sarah L.; Mahmood, Atiya; Stott, Sarah; Sixsmith, Judith; & O’Rourke, Norm. (2014). ’Til divorce

do us part: Marriage dissolution in later life. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55 (8), 591–612. Cassidy, Elaine F.; & Stevenson, Howard C., Jr. (2005). They wear the mask: Hypervulnerability and hypermas-

culine aggression among African American males in an urban remedial disciplinary school. Journal of Aggres- sion, Maltreatment and Trauma, 11, 53–74.

Relationships 271

Cha, Youngjoo; & Thébaud, Sarah. (2009). Labor markets, breadwinning, and beliefs: How economic context shapes men’s gender ideology. Gender and Society, 23 (2), 215–243.

Chan, Alessandra; & Poulin, François. (2007). Monthly changes in the composition of friendship networks in early adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53 (4), 578–602.

Chesters, Jenny. (2013). Gender convergence in core housework hours: Assessing the relevance of earlier approaches for explaining current trends. Journal of Sociology, 49 (1), 78–96.

Clarke, Laura Huld. (2005). Remarriage in later life: Older women’s negotiation of power, resources and domes- tic labor. Journal of Women and Aging, 17 , 21–41.

Cleary, David J.; Ray, Glen E.; LoBello, Steven G.; & Zachar, Peter. (2002). Children’s perceptions of close peer relationships: Quality, congruence and meta-perceptions. Child Study Journal, 32 , 179–192.

Coltrane, Scott. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 , 1208–1233.

Connolly, Jennifer; Craig, Wendy; Goldberg, Adele; & Pepler, Debra. (2004). Mixed-gender groups, dating, and romantic relationship in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14 , 185–207.

Copen, Casey E.; Daniels, Kimberly; Vespa, Jonathan; & Mosher, William D. (2012). First marriages in the United States: Data from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports , No. 49. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Corra, Mamadi; Carter, James; Knox, David; & Houvouras, Shannon. (2006). Marital happiness by sex and race: A second look . Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal.

Cowdery, Randi S.; Scarborough, Norman; Knudson-Martin, Carmen; Seshadri, Gita; Lewis, Monique E.; & Mahoney, Anne Rankin. (2009). Gendered power in cultural contexts: Part II. Middle class African American heterosexual couples with young children. Family Process, 48 (1), 25–39.

Cramer, Duncan. (2002). Relationship satisfaction and confl ict over minor and major issues in romantic rela- tionships. Journal of Psychology, 136 , 75–81.

Cunningham, Mick. (2008). Infl uences of gender ideology and housework allocation on women’s employment over the life course. Social Science Research, 37 (1), 254–267.

de Graaf, Paul M.; & Kalmijn, Matthijs. (2006). Divorce motives in a period of rising divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 27 , 483–505.

DeLucia-Waack, Janice L.; Gerrity, Deborah A.; Taub, Deborah J.; & Baldo, Tracy D. (2001). Gender, gender role identity, and type of relationship as predictors of relationship behavior and beliefs in college students. Journal of College Counseling, 4 , 32–48.

Deutsch, Francine M.; Roksa, Josipa; & Meeske, Cynthia. (2003). How gender counts when couples count their money. Sex Roles, 48 , 291–304.

de Vaus, David. (2002, Winter). Marriage and mental health: Does marriage improve the mental health of men at the expense of women? Family Matters , 62 26–32.

Devries, Karen M.; Mak, Joelle Y. T.; García-Moreno, C.; Petzold, Max; Child, Jennifer C.; Falder, Gail; . . . Watts, Charlotte H. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340 (6140), 1527–1528.

Donaghue, Ngaire; & Fallon, Barry J. (2003). Gender-role self-stereotyping and the relationship between equity and satisfaction in close relationships. Sex Roles, 48 , 217–230.

Dr. FUN. (2004, February 10). Dr. FUN’s Stupid Cupid Awards . Retrieved September 25, 2015, from http:// www.asu.edu/news/campus/stupidcupid_awardslist_021404.htm

Dribe, Martin; & Stanfors, Maria. (2009). Does parenthood strengthen a traditional household division of labor? Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71 (1), 33–45.

DuBois, David L.; & Hirsch, Barton J. (1990). School and neighborhood friendship patterns of Blacks and Whites in early adolescence. Child Development, 61 , 524–536.

Eagly, Alice H.; & Wood, Wendy. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American Psycholo- gist, 54 , 408–423.

Eagly, Alice H.; & Wood, Wendy. (2013). The nature-nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (3), 340–357.

Eaton, Asia Anna; & Rose, Suzanna. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using Sex Roles, 64 , 843–892.

Eisikovits, Zvi; Winstok, Zeev; & Gelles, Richard. (2002). Structure and dynamics of escalation from the victim’s perspective. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83 , 142–152.

272 Relationships

Eshbaugh, Elaine M. (2009). The role of friends in predicting loneliness among older women living alone. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 35 (5), 13–16.

Falconi, Anne; & Mullet, Etienne. (2003). Cognitive algebra of love through the adult life. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 57 , 275–290.

Fehr, Beverley. (2000). The life cycle of friendship. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 71–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Feld, Scott L.; & Straus, Murray A. (1989). Escalation and desistance of wife assault in marriage. Criminology, 27 , 141–161.

Felmlee, Diane; Sweet, Elizabeth; & Sinclair, H. (2012). Gender rules: Same- and cross-gender friendships norms. Sex Roles, 66 (7/8), 518–529.

Fetto, John. (2003, June 1). First comes love. American Demographics, 25 (5). Fisher, Kimberly; & Robinson, John. (2011). Daily life in 23 countries. Social Indicators Research, 101 (2),

295–304. Furman, Wyndol; Ho, Martin J.; & Low, Sabina M. (2007). The rocky road of adolescent romantic experience:

Dating and adjustment. In R. C. M. E. Engles, M. Kerr, & H. Stattin (Eds.), Friends, lovers and groups: Key relationships in adolescence (pp. 61–80). New York: Wiley.

Furman, Wyndol; Simon, Valerie A.; Shaffer, Laura; & Bouchey, Heather A. (2002). Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73 , 241–255.

Gadalla, Tahany M. (2009). Impact of marital dissolution on men’s and women’s incomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 50 (1), 55–65.

Galician, Mary-Lou; & Merskin, Debra L. (Eds.). (2007). Critical thinking about sex, love, and romance in the mass media . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gibbons, Deborah; & Olk, Paul. (2003). Individual and structural origins of friendship and social position among professionals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 , 340–351.

Giordano, Peggy C.; Longmore, Monica A.; & Manning, Wendy D. (2006). Gender and the meanings of ado- lescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71 , 260–287.

Glick, Peter; & Fiske, Susan T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifi cation for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56 , 109–118.

Gottman, John M. (1991). Predicting the longitudinal course of marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 17 , 3–7.

Gottman, John M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49 , 169–187.

Gottman, John M.; & Driver, Janice L. (2005). Dysfunctional marital confl ict and everyday marital interaction. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 43 (3/4), 63–78.

Gottman, John M.; Levenson, Robert W.; Gross, James; Frederickson, Barbara L.; McCoy, Kim; Rosenthal, Leah; . . . Yoshimoto, Dan. (2003). Correlates of gay and lesbian couples’ relationship satisfaction and rela- tionship dissolution. Journal of Homosexuality, 45 , 23–43.

Gottman, John M.; & Notarius, Clifford I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 , 927–947.

Gottman, John; & Silver, Nan. (2000). Seven principles for making marriages work . New York: Crown. Gottman, John M.; Swanson, Catherine; & Swanson, Kristin. (2002). A general systems theory of marriage:

Nonlinear difference equation modeling of marital interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 , 326–340.

Gray, John. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus . New York: HarperCollins. Green, Siski. (2013). The new rules of dating. Men’s Fitness, 29 (2), 66–70. Greenstein, Theodore N.; & Davis, Shannon N. (2006). Cross-national variations in divorce: Effects of women’s

power, prestige and dependence. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37 , 253–273. Greenwood, Gregory L.; Relf, Michael V.; Huang, Bu; Pollack, Lance M.; Canchola, Jesse A.; & Catania, Joseph

A. (2002). Battering victimization among a probability-based sample of men who have sex with men. Ameri- can Journal of Public Health, 92 , 1964–1969.

Hall, Ronald E. (2009). Cool pose, Black manhood, and juvenile delinquency. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19 (5), 531–539.

Relationships 273

Hamel, John. (2009). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate partner violence research and theory: Part 2—New directions. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8 (1), 41–59.

Harris, Frank III; Palmer, Robert T.; & Struve, Laura E. (2011). “Cool posing” on campus: A qualitative study of masculinities and gender expression among Black men at a private research institution. Journal of Negro Education, 80 (1), 47–62.

Harrison, Marissa A.; & Shortall, Jennifer C. (2011). Women and men in love: Who really feels it and says it fi rst? Journal of Social Psychology, 151 (6), 727–736.

Hatfi eld, Elaine; & Rapson, Richard L. (1996). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives . Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Heise, Lori; Ellsberg, Mary; & Gottemoeller, Megan. (1999). Ending violence against women. Population

Reports , Series L, No. 11. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, School of Public Health, Population Informa- tion Program.

Hetherington, E. Mavis; & Kelly, John. (2002). For better or worse: Divorce reconsidered . New York: Norton. Hewitt, Belinda. (2009). Which spouse initiates marital separation when there are children involved? Journal of

Marriage and Family, 71 (2), 362–372. Heyman, Richard E.; Hunt-Martorano, Ashley N.; Malik, Jill; & Slep, Amy M. Smith. (2009). Desired change

in couples: Gender differences and effects on communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 23 (4), 474–484. Hochschild, Arlie. (1997). The time bind . New York: Metropolitan Books. Hochschild, Arlie (with Machung, Anne). (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home .

New York: Viking. Howard, Judith A.; Blumstein, Philip; & Schwartz, Pepper. (1987). Social or evolutionary theories? Some obser-

vations on preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 , 194–200. Iwama, Akiko. (2005). Social stratifi cation and the division of household labor in Japan: The effect of wives’

work on the division of labor among dual-earner families. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 14 , 15–31.

Jacklin, Carol Nagy; & Maccoby, Eleanor E. (1978). Social behavior at thirty-three months in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads. Child Development, 49 , 557–569.

Jayson, Sharon. (2008, September 25). Women rule the roost, and that’s OK with men. USA Today, News , 1. Jewkes, Rachel. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. Lancet, 359 , 1423–1429. Johnson, Michael P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against

women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 , 283–294. Johnson, Michael P. (2005). Domestic violence: It’s not about gender—or is it? Journal of Marriage and Family,

67 (5), 1126–1130. Johnson, Michael P.; & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple

violence: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26 , 322–349. Joyner, Kara; & Kao, Grace. (2000). School racial composition and adolescent racial homophily. Social Science

Quarterly, 81 , 810–825. Kalmijn, Matthijs. (2005). Attitude alignment in marriage and cohabitation: The case of sex-role attitudes.

Personal Relationships, 12 , 521–535. Kan, Man Yee. (2008). Does gender trump money? Housework hours of husbands and wives in Britain. Work,

Employment and Society, 22 (1), 45–66. Kar, Heidi Lary; & Garcia-Moreno, Claudia. (2009). Partner aggression across cultures. In K. D. O’Leary &

E. M. Woodin (Eds.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions (pp. 59–75). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kiecolt-Glaser, Janice K.; & Newton, Tamara L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bul- letin, 127 , 472–503.

Klinkenberg, Dean; & Rose, Suzanna. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 26 (4), 23–35.

Kurdek, Lawrence A. (1993). The allocation of household labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married cou- ples. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (3), 127–139.

Kurdek, Lawrence A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 , 880–900.

Kurdek, Lawrence A. (2008). A general model of relationship commitment: Evidence from same-sex partners. Personal Relationships, 15 (3), 391–405.

274 Relationships

Laner, Mary Riege; & Ventrone, Nicole A. (2000). Dating scripts revisited. Journal of Family Issues, 21 , 488–500.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Jennifer; Misra, Tiffany A.; Selwyn, Candice; & Rohling, Martin L. (2012). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3 (2), 199–230.

Lau, Charles Q. (2012). The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation, and marriage. Journal of Marriage & Family, 74 (5), 973–988.

Levenson, Robert W.; Carstensen, Laura L.; & Gottman, John M. (1994). The infl uence of age and gender on affect, physiology, and their interrelations: A study of long-term marriages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 , 56–68.

Levy, Donald P. (2005). Hegemonic complicity, friendship, and comradeship: Validation and causal processes among White, middle-class, middle-aged men. Journal of Men’s Studies, 13, 199–224.

Li, Manyu; Frieze, Irene Hanson; Nokes-Malach, Timothy J.; & Cheong, Jeewon. (2013). Do friends always help your studies? Mediating processes between social relations and academic motivation. Social Psychology of Education, 16 (1), 129–149.

Li, Norman P.; Valentine, Katherine A.; & Patel, Lily. (2013). Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: A cross- cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Personality & Individual Differences, 50 (2), 291–294.

Lin, Ying-Ching; & Raghubir, Priya. (2003). Gender differences in unrealistic optimism about marriage and divorce: Are men more optimistic and women more realistic? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 , 198–207.

Lindsey, Eric W. (2002). Preschool children’s friendship and peer acceptance: Links to social competence. Child Study Journal, 32 , 145–156.

Loving, Timothy J.; Heffner, Kathi L.; Kiecolt-Glaser, Janice K.; Glaser, Ronald; & Malarkey, William B. (2004). Stress hormone changes and marital confl ict: Spouses’ relative power makes a difference. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 , 595–612.

Ludwig-Mayerhofer, Wolfgang; Allmendinger, Jutta; Hirseland, Andreas; & Schneider, Werner. (2011). The power of money in dual-earner couples: A comparative study. Acta Sociologica, 54 (4), 367–383.

Luong, Gloria; Charles, Susan T.; & Fingerman, Karen L. (2011). Better with age: Social relationships across adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28 (1), 9–23.

Maccoby, Eleanor E. (2002). Gender and group process: A developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 , 54–58.

MacGeorge, Erina L.; Graves, Angela R.; Feng, Bo; & Gillihan, Seth J. (2004). The myth of gender cultures: Similarities outweigh differences in men’s and women’s provision of and responses to supportive communica- tion. Sex Roles, 50 , 143–175.

Maciel, Jose A.; van Putten, Zanetta; & Knudson-Martin, Carmen. (2009). Gendered power in cultural context: Part I. Immigrant couples. Family Process, 48 (1), 9–23.

Mackey, Richard A.; Diemer, Matthew A.; & O’Brien, Bernard A. (2000). Psychological intimacy in the lasting relationships of heterosexual and same-gender couples. Sex Roles, 43 , 201–227.

Majors, Richard G.; & Billson, J. M. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of black manhood in America . New York: Lexington.

Majors, Richard G.; Tyler, Richard; Peden, Blaine; & Hall, Ron. (1994). Cool pose: A symbolic mechanism for masculine role enactment and coping by black males. In R. G. Majors & J. U. Gordon (Eds.), The American black male: His present status and his future (pp. 245–259). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Malt, Sue. (2007). Love actually! Older adults and their romantic Internet relationships. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 5 (2), 84–102.

Marder, Ariane. (2005). Bad boys: You may not be one, but here are seven ways to make her think you are. Men’s Fitness, 21 (10), 40.

Markman, Howard J.; Rhoades, Galena K.; Stanley, Scott M.; Ragan, Erica P.; & Whitton, Sarah W. (2010). The premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: The fi rst fi ve years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24 (3), 289–298.

Marquardt, Elizabeth; Blakenhorn, David; Lerman, Robert I.; Malone-Colón, Linda; & Wilcox, W. Bradford. (2012). The state of our unions: The president’s marriage agenda for the forgotten sixty percent . Charlottesville, VA: National Marriage Project and Institute for American Values.

Relationships 275

Martin, C. A.; Lommel, K.; Cox, J.; Kelly, T.; Rayens, M. K.; Woodring, J. H.; . . . Omar, Hatim. (2007). Kiss and tell: What do we know about pre- and early adolescent females who report dating? A pilot study. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 20 (1), 45–49.

McDougall, Patricia; & Hymel, Shelley. (2007). Same-gender versus cross-gender friendship conceptions. Mer- rill-Palmer Quarterly, 53 (3), 347–380.

McKeever, Matthew; & Wolfi nger, Nicholas H. (2001). Reexamining the economic costs of marital disruption for women. Social Science Quarterly, 82 , 202–217.

Meier, Ann; & Allen, Gina. (2009). Romantic relationships from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Sociological Quarterly, 50 (2), 308–335.

Moore, Fhionna Rosemary; Cassidy, Clare; Smith, Miriam Jane Law; & Perrett, David Ian. (2006). The effects of female control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27 , 193–205.

Moremen, Robin D. (2008). Best friends: The role of confi dantes in older women’s health. Journal of Women & Aging, 20 (1–2), 149–167.

Morr Serewicz, Mary; & Gale, Elaine. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 58 (3/4), 149–164.

Mota, Jorge; Silva, Pedro; Santos, Maria Paula; Ribeiro, José Carlos; Oliveira, José; & Durate, José A. (2005). Physical activity and school recess time: Differences between the sexes and the relationship between children’s playground physical activity and habitual physical activity. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23 , 269–275.

Movement Advancement Project (MAP). (2010). Improving the lives of older LGBT adults . Retrieved Decem- ber 29, 2015, from https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/04/pdf/lgbt_ elders.pdf

Munroe, Robert L.; & Romney, A. Kimbal. (2006). Gender and age differences in same-sex aggregation and social behavior: A four-culture study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37 , 3–19.

Nardi, Peter M. (2007). Friendship, sex, and masculinity. In Michael Kimmel (Ed.), The sexual self: The construc- tion of sexual scripts (pp. 49–57). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

National Vital Statistics System. (2015). National marriage and divorce rate trends . Retrieved September 25, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

Netting, Nancy S.; & Burnett, Matthew L. (2004). Twenty years of student sexual behavior: Subcultural adapta- tions to a changing health environment. Adolescence, 39 , 19–38.

Nico, Magda Lalanda; & Rodrigues, Elisabete. (2013). The organization of household work in same-sex couples. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 12 (1), 43–61.

O’Donnell, Katherine; & O’Rouke, Michael. (Eds.). (2003). Love, sex, intimacy and friendship between men, 1550–1800 . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Oransky, Matthew; & Marecek, Jeanne. (2009). “I’m not going to be a girl”: Masculinity and emotions in boys’ friendships and peer groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24 (2), 218–241.

Öun, Ida. (2013). Is it fair to share? Perceptions of fairness in the division of housework among couples in 22 countries. Social Justice Research , 26 (4), 400–421.

Owen, Stephen S.; & Burke, Tod W. (2004). An exploration of prevalence of domestic violence in same-sex relationships. Psychological Reports, 95 , 129–132.

Pahl, Ray; & Pevalin, David J. (2005). Between family and friends: A longitudinal study of friendship choice. British Journal of Sociology, 56 , 433–450.

Paul, Pamela. (2003, September 1). We’re just friends. Really! Time, 162 (9), A1. Peplau, Letitia Anne; & Campbell, Susan Miller. (1989). The balance of power in dating and marriage. In

J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective (4th ed., pp. 121–137). Mountain View, CA: Mayfi eld. Peplau, Letitia Anne; & Fingerhut, Adam W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual

Review of Psychology, 58 (1), 405–424. Peplau, Letitia Anne; & Spalding, Leah R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.

In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 110–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perrin, Paul B.; Heesacker, Martin; Tiegs, Tom J.; Swan, Lawton K.; Lawrence, Alvin W., Jr.; Smith, Mary B.; . . . Mejia-Millan, Cristina M. (2011). Aligning Mars and Venus: The social construction and instability of gender differences in romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 64 (9/10), 613–628.

276 Relationships

Pinto, Katy; & Coltrane, Scott. (2009). Divisions of labor in Mexican origin and Anglo families: Structure and culture. Sex Roles, 60 (7/8), 482–495.

Pitt, Richard N.; & Borland, Elizabeth. (2008). Bachelorhood and men’s attitudes about gender roles. Journal of Men’s Studies, 16 (2), 140–158.

Pnina, Ron. (2009). The differences in role division between partners in long-term marriages and their well- being. Journal of Family Social Work, 12 (1), 44–55.

Previti, Denise; & Amato, Paul R. (2003). Why stay married? Rewards, barriers, and marital stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 , 561–573.

PRN Newswire. (2008, February 12). Engage releases fi rst annual state of the date report . Retrieved January 3, 2014, from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/engage-releases-first-annual-state-of-the-date- report-59273197.html

Quatman, Teri; Sampson, Kindra; Robinson, Cindi; & Watson, Cary M. (2001). Academic, motivational, and emotional correlates of adolescent dating. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 127 , 211–234.

Quintero Gonzalez, Alexei; & Koestner, Richard. (2006). What Valentine announcement reveal about the romantic emotions of men and women. Sex Roles, 55 (11/12), 767–773.

Radmacher, Kimberley; & Azmitia, Margarita. (2006). Are there gendered pathways to intimacy in early ado- lescents’ and emerging adults’ friendships? Journal of Adolescent Research, 21 (4), 415–448.

Rebellon, Cesar; & Manasse, Michelle. (2004). Do “bad boys” really get the girls? Delinquency as a cause and consequence of dating behavior among adolescents. Justice Quarterly, 21 , 355–389.

Reeder, Heidi M. (2003). The effect of gender role orientation on same- and cross-sex friendship formation. Sex Roles, 49 , 143–152.

Regan, Pamela C.; Medina, Roberta; & Joshi, Anupama. (2001). Partner preferences among homosexual men and women: What is desirable in a sex partner is not necessarily desirable in a romantic partner. Social Behavior and Personality, 29 , 625–631.

Rennison, Callie Marie. (2003). Intimate partner violence, 1993–2001: Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Briefs . Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Riessman, Catherine Kohler. (1990). Divorce talk: Women and men make sense of personal relationships . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Rose, Amanda J. (2007). Structure, content, and socioemotional correlates of girls’ and boys’ friendships. Mer- rill-Palmer Quarterly, 53 (3), 489–506.

Rose, Suzanna; & Frieze, Irene Hanson. (1993). Young singles’ contemporary dating scripts. Sex Roles, 28 , 499–509.

Rose, Suzanna M.; & Zand, Debra. (2002). Lesbian dating and courtship from young adulthood to midlife. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6 , 85–109.

Rosenfeld, Michael J. (2014). Couple longevity in the era of same-sex marriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage & Family, 76 (5), 905–918.

Roy, Rosanne; Benenson, Joyce F.; & Lilly, Frank. (2000). Beyond intimacy: Conceptualizing sex differences in same-sex friendships. Journal of Psychology, 134 , 93–102.

Sachs-Ericsson, Natalie; & Ciarlo, James A. (2000). Gender, social roles, and mental health: An epidemiological perspective. Sex Roles, 43 , 605–628.

Saginak, Kelli A.; & Saginak, M. Alan. (2005). Balancing work and family: Equity, gender, and marital satisfac- tion. Family Journal, 13 , 162–166.

Sakraida, Teresa J. (2005). Common themes in the divorce transition experience of midlife women. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 43 (1/2), 69–88.

Samter, Wendy; & Burleson, Brant. (2005). The role of communication in same-sex friendships: A comparison among African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans. Communication Quarterly, 53 , 265–283.

Sandfi eld, Anna. (2006). Talking divorce: The role of divorce in women’s constructions of relationship status. Feminism & Psychology, 16 , 155–173.

Sayer, Liana C. (2005). Gender, time and inequality: Trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid, work and free time. Social Forces, 84 , 285–303.

Sbarra, David A.; Law, Rita W.; & Portley, Robert M. (2011). Divorce and death: A meta-analysis and research agenda for clinical, social, and health psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (5), 454–474.

Relationships 277

Schwartz, Shalom H.; & Rubel-Lifschitz, Tammy. (2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: Effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1), 171–185.

Scott, Eric; & Panksepp, Jaak. (2003). Rough-and-tumble play in human children. Aggressive Behavior, 29 , 539–551.

Shahidullah, Shahid M.; & Nana Derby, C. (2009). Criminalisation, moderinsation, and globlisation: The US and international perspectives on domestic violence. Global Crime, 10 (3), 196–223.

Sheets, Virgil; & Lugar, Robyn. (2005). Friendship and gender in Russia and the United States. Sex Roles, 52 , 131–140.

Sias, Patricia M.; Smith, Guy; & Avdeyeva, Tatyana. (2003). Sex and sex-composition differences and similarities in peer workplace friendship development. Communication Studies, 54 , 322–340.

Simons, Ronald L.; Simons, Leslie G.; Lei, Man K.; & Landor, Antoinette M. (2012). Relational schemas, hostile romantic relationships, and beliefs about marriage among young African American adults. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 29 (1), 77–101.

Singleton, Andrew; & Maher, JaneMaree. (2004). The “new man” in the house: Young men, social change, and housework. Journal of Men’s Studies, 12 , 227–240.

Singleton, Royce A., Jr.; & Vacca, Jessica. (2007). Interpersonal competition in friendships. Sex Roles, 57 (9/10), 617–627.

Smith, C. A.; Konik, J. A.; & Tuve, M. V. (2011). In search of looks, status, or something else? Partner preferences among butch and femme lesbians and heterosexual men and women. Sex Roles, 64 (9), 658–668.

Solomon, Denise Haunani; Knobloch, Leanne K.; & Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne. (2004). Relational power, marital schema, and decisions to withhold complaints: An investigation of the chilling effect on confrontation in marriage. Communication Studies, 55 , 146–168.

Solomon, Sondra E.; Rothblum, Esther D.; & Balsam, Kimberly F. (2005). Money, housework, sex, and confl ict: Same-sex couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings. Sex Roles, 52 , 561–575.

Sprecher, Susan. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with satisfaction, commit- ment, and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 , 599–613.

Sprecher, Susan; & Felmlee, Diane. (1997). The balance of power in romantic heterosexual couples over time from “his” and “her” perspectives. Sex Roles, 37 , 361–379.

Sprecher, Susan; Felmlee, Diane; Schmeeckle, Maria; & Shu, Xiaoling. (2006). No breakup occurs on an island: Social networks and relationship dissolution. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sprecher, Susan; & Regan, Pamela C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19 , 463–481.

Sprecher, Susan; & Toro-Morn, Maura. (2002). A study of men and women from different sides of earth to determine if men are from Mars and women are from Venus in their beliefs about love and romantic relation- ships. Sex Roles, 46 , 131–147.

Statistic Brain. (2015). Online dating statistics . Retrieved October 2, 2015, from http://www.statisticbrain.com/ online-dating-statistics/

Steil, Janice M. (2000). Contemporary marriage: Still an unequal partnership. In Clyde Hendrick & Susan S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 124–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sternberg, Robert J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93 , 119–135. Sternberg, Robert J. (1987). Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories. Psychological Bulletin,

102 , 331–345. Stohs, Joanne Hoven. (2000). Multicultural women’s experience of household labor, confl icts, and equity. Sex

Roles, 42 , 339–362. Straus, Murray A. (2009). Gender symmetry in partner violence: Evidence and implications for prevention and

treatment. In D. J. Whitaker & J. R. Lutzker (Eds.), Preventing partner violence: Research and evidence-based intervention (pp. 245–271). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Straus, Murray A.; & Gelles, Richard J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two National Surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48 , 465–479.

Straus, Murray A.; Gelles, Richard J.; & Steinmetz, Suzanne K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family . Garden City, NY: Anchor.

278 Relationships

Sullivan, Oriel; & Coltrane, Scott. (2008). Men’s changing contributions to housework and child care. Council on contemporary families . Retrieved August 19, 2016 from https://contemporaryfamilies.org/ mens-changing-contribution-to-housework-and-childcare-brief-report/

Swami, Viren; Stieger, Stefan; Haubner, Tanja; Voracek, Martin; & Furnham, Adrian. (2009). Evaluating the physical attractiveness of oneself and one’s romantic partner: Individual and relationship correlates of the love-is-blind bias. Journal of Individual Differences, 30 (1), 35–43.

Tannen, Deborah. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation . New York: William Morrow.

Thomas, Cindy; & Ryan, Marilyn. (2008). Women’s perception of the divorce experience: A qualitative study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 49 (3/4), 210–224.

Thompson, Linda; & Walker, Alexis J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51 , 845–871.

Thorne, Barrie. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Thornton, Arland; & Young-DeMarco, Linda. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues

in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 , 1009–1037. Tichenor, Veronica Jaris. (2005a). Earning more and getting less: Why successful wives can’t buy equality . New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Tichenor, Veronica. (2005b). Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns

more. Sex Roles, 53 , 191–205. Tjaden, Patricia; & Thoennes, Nancy. (2000). Extent, nature and consequences of intimate partner violence: Find-

ings from the National Violence against Women Survey . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. United Nations. (2010). The world’s women 2010: Trends and statistics . New York: United Nations. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012 (131st ed.). Retrieved October 4, 2015,

from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ Van Willigen, Marieke; & Drentea, Patricia. (2001). Benefi ts of equitable relationships: The impact of sense of

fairness, household division of labor, and decision making power on perceived social support. Sex Roles, 44 , 571–597.

Waldrip, Amy M.; Malcolm, Kenya T.; & Jensen-Campbell, Lauri A. (2008). With a little help from your friends: The importance of high-quality friendships on early adolescent adjustment. Social Development, 17 (4), 832–852.

Watson, David. (2012). Gender differences in gossip and friendship. Sex Roles, 67 (9/10), 494–502. Way, Niobe. (2011). Deep secrets: Boys’ friendships and the crisis of connection . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-

sity Press. Weeden, Jason; & Sabini, John. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A review. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 131 , 635–653. Welter, Barbara. (1978). The cult of true womanhood: 1820–1860. In Michael Gordon (Ed.), The American

family in social-historical perspective (2nd ed., pp. 313–333). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Werking, Kathy. (1997). We’re just good friends . New York: Guilford Press. Weston, Rebecca; Temple, Jeff R.; & Marshall, Linda L. (2005). Gender symmetry and asymmetry in violent

relationships: Patterns of mutuality among racially diverse women. Sex Roles, 53 , 553–571. Wight, Vanessa R.; Bianchi, Suzanne M.; & Hunt, Bijou R. (2013). Explaining racial/ethnic variation in part-

nered women’s and men’s housework: Does one size fi t all? Journal of Family Issues, 34 (3), 394–427. Wilkins, Amy C.; & Dalessandro, Cristen. (2013). Monogamy lite: Cheating, college, and women. Gender &

Society, 27 (5), 728–751. Williams, Stacey L.; & Frieze, Irene. (2005). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological distress, and marital

satisfaction in a national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52 , 771–784. Winstok, Zeev; & Perkis, Eila. (2009). Women’s perspective on men’s control and aggression in intimate rela-

tionships. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79 (2), 169–180. Wissink, Inge B.; Deković, Maja; & Meijer, Anne Marie. (2009). Adolescent friendship relations and develop-

mental outcomes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29 (3), 405–425. Wolak, Janis; Finkelhor, David; & Mitchell, Kimberly. (2008). Is talking online to unknown people always risky?

Distinguishing online interaction styles in a national sample of youth Internet users. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11 (3), 340–343.

Relationships 279

Wolak, Janis; Mitchell, Kimberly J.; & Finkelhor, David. (2002). Close online relationships in a national sample of adolescents. Adolescence, 37 , 441–455.

World Bank. (2013). Labor participation rate, female (% of female population ages 15+) . Retrieved September 25, 2015, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS

Wu, Zheng; & Schimmele, Christoph M. (2005). Repartnering after fi rst union disruption. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 , 27–36.

Zagor, Karen. (2006, May 29). I declare a chore war. Maclean’s, 119 (22), 34–36. Zagorsky, Jay L. (2005). Marriage and divorce’s impact on wealth. Journal of Sociology, 41 , 406–424.

Headline: “How to End the War over Sex Ed,” Time Atlantic, April 6, 2009

When Jewels Morris-Davis turned 16 years old, she was proud of being “the fi rst person in [her] family to reach 16 without getting pregnant—or getting somebody pregnant” (Sullivan, 2009, p. 38). Jewels lived in a rural area in South Carolina that had a very high rate of teen pregnancy until her school instituted a sexuality education program that changed that county’s teen pregnancy rate and may provide a guide for how to end the U.S. “war” over sexuality education.

There is no argument over the problem of teen pregnancy: Despite declines in the rate of teen pregnancy over the past 20 years, the United States still has the highest rate in the indus- trialized world (Sedgh, Finer, Bankole, Eilers, & Singh, 2015). The confl ict has revolved around what type of programs can lower that statistic. In the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, the U.S. Congress provided funding for abstinence-oriented sex education, which emphasized sexual activity as exclusively part of marriage. Proponents of this view argue that providing information on sexuality encourages questions and fantasies that push children toward sexual activity; the only acceptable message is “Don’t have sex.” Others believe that the abstinence approach leaves young people vulnerable and unprepared in a world fi lled with sex, but the federal funding limitation to abstinence-only programs limited sexuality education in U.S. public schools.

Anderson County, South Carolina, found community funding to institute a comprehen- sive sexuality and relationship program (Sullivan, 2009). The county hired a professional sexuality educator (rather than follow the typical pattern of putting a coach or biology teacher in charge of sexuality education) and encouraged development of a curriculum that included not only information about pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) but also decision-making skills. During the fi rst 3 years of the program, the teen birth rate stayed high, but after that, it declined sharply. Surprisingly little controversy occurred in Anderson County, but other parts of the country have been plagued by protests, and many school systems offer little or no sexuality education beyond messages to abstain (Fields & Tolman, 2006).

The controversy over sexuality education is but one of many within the area of sexuality. Other controversies include sexual orientation, childhood sexuality and abuse, and gender differences in sexuality. It seems that no area of sexuality escapes controversy, and that general principle applies even to the research on sexuality, which is the fi rst topic for this chapter. Later sections explore the research and controversies in the development of sexuality during childhood and the development of the sexual orientations of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

Sexuality 10

Sexuality 281

The Study of Sexuality

Researchers who want to know about sexual behaviors and attitudes have several options in choosing a method of investigation. They may question people about their sexual behavior, or they may directly observe people’s sexual behavior. Both of these approaches present sci- entifi c, practical, and ethical problems.

Those researchers who choose to question people about their sexual behaviors or attitudes are using the survey method, which has been the most common approach to studying sexu- ality. People’s truthfulness is a limitation to this method, which may be lacking when they respond to questions about a private, personal issue such as sex. In addition, some people refuse to participate in sex surveys; these people are likely to differ from those who are will- ing to answer questions about their sexual attitudes and behavior. This situation describes self-selection of participants , which biases the procedure so that the individuals are not a representative sample —a group of people that refl ects the characteristics of the population from which the sample was drawn. The results can still reveal interesting and important information, but self-selected participants prohibit researchers from generalizing the results to the general population. A goal of sex survey researchers is to obtain a representative por- tion of participants who report truthfully.

Another possibility for investigating sexual behavior is through direct observation of sexual activity. People are even less willing to participate in this type of research than in a survey, but nonhuman animals have (or at least have voiced) no such objections. The problems of gen- eralizing results from these studies to humans are more serious, but a prominent example of this type of research appears in Patterns of Sexual Behavior (1951) by anthropologist Clellan Ford and psychologist Frank Beach. These two researchers presented not only a cross-cultural study of human sexual behavior, but cross-species comparisons as well. A small number of people have been willing to have sex in a research laboratory. Such participants allowed Wil- liam Masters and Virginia Johnson (1966) to study human sexual behavior in ways that no other researchers had managed.

Despite the challenges of both approaches, researchers have attempted to understand sexual behavior by using both surveys and direct observations of sexual behavior.

Sex Surveys

Before Alfred Kinsey’s groundbreaking survey of sexual behavior in the 1930s and 1940s, several other investigators completed reports on sexuality (Brecher, 1969). For example, Henry Havelock Ellis worked in England between 1896 and 1928, and Clelia Duel Mosher began studying sexual behavior among college women in the United States in 1892 (Degler, 1974). Each conducted research that led them to question the prevailing Victorian social norms of repression and denial of sexuality that he saw around him were not refl ected in people’s sexual behavior. For example, Mosher found that most of the women she questioned experienced both sexual desire and orgasms. Several other researchers completed small-scale sex surveys during the early 1900s, but the most famous of the surveys on sexual behavior were those completed by Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues.

The Kinsey Surveys

In 1937, Alfred Kinsey was a professor of biology at the University of Indiana, where he began to teach a newly created course in sex education, a controversial topic at that time.

282 Sexuality

Kinsey found that little systematic research existed on sexuality, so he began such research in 1938. He constructed an interview that included information about nine areas: social and economic background, marital history, sex education, physical characteristics and physiology, nocturnal sex dreams, masturbation, heterosexual history, history of same-sex sexual activity, and sexual contact with animals. Each of these areas included subdivi- sions, creating an extensive but time-consuming interview. Kinsey and his associates, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, and Paul Gebhard, conducted a total of 17,500 inter- views (Brecher, 1969).

Although the interviews were extensive and many people participated, Kinsey’s sample was not representative. His fi nal groups of 5,300 men and 5,940 women were White, well educated, mostly from Indiana, and largely Protestant. His failure to obtain a representative sample means that his results do not apply to the U.S. population.

Kinsey’s surveys managed to overcome the problem with truthfulness associated with survey research (Bancroft, 2004; Brecher, 1969). His technique included asking questions such as, “At what age did you fi rst experience full intercourse?” This approach assumed that everyone had done everything, which may have made people more comfortable and encour- aged them to tell the truth. Reinterviewing some participants 18 months after their fi rst interview revealed mostly minor inconsistencies that came from memory lapses rather than intentional deception, indicating to Kinsey that people were telling the truth.

The results from Kinsey’s surveys appeared in two parts, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). Kinsey’s reports appeared during a time when sex was not a topic of polite conversation, when women were supposed to be reluctant to have sex, and when same-sex, premarital, and extramarital sexual activities were illegal in many areas. The results of the surveys surprised (and even shocked) many people, because the partici- pants reported such a wide variety of sexual behaviors, including some that were socially unacceptable and even illegal.

Kinsey’s results indicated that women enjoyed sex; that a substantial percentage of men had participated in male–male sexual behavior; that children experienced sexual excitement and activity; and that masturbation, premarital sex, and extramarital sex were common for both women and men. Around 90% of the women in the study had experienced an orgasm by age 35 years. Of the 10% who had not, another 8% reported experiencing sexual arousal, leaving only 2% of women who had failed to enjoy sexual activity, a fi gure much lower than most people had imagined.

Some of Kinsey’s most controversial fi ndings concerned same-sex sexual behavior, which Kinsey referred to as homosexual. The term has become stigmatized because it highlights the sexual aspect of these individuals’ lives and nothing else. The term gay is an alternative that many fi nd preferable and that may apply to both men and women, but it is more often used to describe men who have sexual relationships with men. The term lesbian refers to women who have sexual relationships with women.

A total of 37% of the men in Kinsey’s survey reported at least one sexual experience with another man that led to orgasm. This fi gure included men who had had sexual experiences with other men only during early adolescence and men who had had only one such expe- rience. Some of these men reported that they had no subsequent sexual experiences with other men or no longer felt sexual attraction toward men. Both the percentage of men who had some type of sexual experience with other men (37%) and the percentage of men who primarily or exclusively had sex with other men (13%) were higher than previous estimates (Brecher, 1969). Kinsey’s fi gures on female sexual activity with other women were similar to the fi gures for men, but the percentages were smaller: 28% of women had at least some sexual experience with other women, but only 7% reported primarily or exclusively lesbian

Sexuality 283

Table 10.1 Percentage of Participants Reporting Sexual Activities in Four Sex Surveys

Sexual Activity Kinsey Surveys (Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953)

Playboy Foundation Survey (Hunt, 1974)

National Health and Social Life Survey (Laumann et al., 1994)

National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (Herbenick et al., 2010)

Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women

Masturbation to orgasm

92.0% 58.0% 94.0% 63.0% — — 67.5–94.3% 43.3–86.6%

Masturbation before age 13

45.0 14.0 63.0 33.0 — — — —

Masturbation during marriage

40.0 30.0 72.0 68.0 57.0% 37.0% 60 26

At least one homosexual experience

37.0 28.0 — — 7.1 3.8 9.5 received, 9.5 gave oral sex

< 5 received, 11 gave oral sex

Primarily homosexual orientation

13.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 4.1 2.2 4.2 0.9

Premarital intercourse 71.0 33.0 97.0 67.0 93.0 79.0 — —

Extramarital sex 50.0 26.0 41.0 18.0 <25.0 <10.0 — —

Sexual abuse during childhood

10.0 25.0 — — 12.0 17.0 — —

sexuality. Table 10.1 shows these fi gures. The frequency of same-sex sexual attraction and activity are part of a continuing controversy. Kinsey’s fi gures for the number of men who primarily or exclusively have sex with other men are not only higher than previous estimates, but they are also higher than later estimates (Hunt, 1974; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994) and are likely not representative (Bancroft, 2004).

Another controversial fi nding related to childhood sexuality (Bancroft, 2004). Many participants in the Kinsey survey reported that as children they had sexual feelings and sometimes acted on those feelings. The most common type of childhood sexuality was masturbation , manipulation of the genitals to produce sexual pleasure. Infants and young children masturbate, some to orgasm. A total of 14% of the women and 45% of the men in Kinsey’s survey said that they had masturbated before age 13 years. They also remembered other-gender and same-sex exploratory play with peers as well as sexual contact with adults. Men recalled preadolescent intercourse more frequently than women did. Almost one-fourth of the women recalled incidents during which adult men had shown their genitals, touched them, or attempted intercourse. Over half of the incidents reported by women involved acquaintances or family members. Adults’ recollections of their childhood sexual activities are most likely not completely accurate, but Kinsey’s results suggested that children experi- ence sexual curiosity and exploration as well as sexual abuse by adults.

Kinsey’s survey revealed that masturbation was a common sexual activity that begins for a small percentage during preadolescence and increases during adolescence. Almost all of the men and about two-thirds of the women had reached orgasm by masturbating. Married people told Kinsey that they continued to masturbate, although they also had sex with their spouses. Around 30% of married women and 40% of married men reported that they mas- turbated. These fi gures contradicted the popular notion that masturbation was primarily a practice of adolescence and that people with a sexual partner no longer masturbated. Recent

284 Sexuality

research confi rms Kinsey’s fi ndings. In a representative sample of U.S. adults (Das, 2007), 38% of women and 61% of men reported that they masturbate. Indeed, over half of women in the United States own and use a vibrator (Herbenick et al., 2010).

Kinsey surveyed people who lived in a society that accepted different sexual standards for men and women. Although both were supposed to be sexually inexperienced before mar- riage and to have sex only with their spouses, men were not held to this standard but women were. This double standard for sexual behavior stretches back at least a century, and Kin- sey found evidence for it in the different rates for both premarital and extramarital sex. By 25 years of age, 83% of unmarried men but only 33% of unmarried women said that they had participated in intercourse. A similar discrepancy occurred in the reports of extramarital affairs—about half the men but only 26% of the women admitted having extramarital affairs.

In summary, Kinsey surveyed men and women to determine their sexual behavior, and his results popularized the study of sex. After the Kinsey reports, many other sex researchers chose the survey method of investigation.

Hunt’s Playboy Foundation Survey

In the 1970s, the Playboy Foundation commissioned a survey of sexual behavior in the United States to update the Kinsey fi ndings and to obtain a more representative sample. This effort resulted in the 1974 publication of Sexual Behavior in the 1970s by Morton Hunt. Although the attempt to obtain a representative sample fell short, the fi nal sample matched characteristics of the U.S. population in terms of ethnic background, education, age, and marital status. The 2,026 participants fi lled out a lengthy questionnaire about their backgrounds, including sex education, attitudes toward sex, and sexual histories. A total of 200 also participated in an even lengthier interview that was similar to the Kinsey interviews.

As Table 10.1 shows, this survey confi rmed the prevalence of masturbation; the rate of masturbation during adulthood was similar and preadolescent masturbation was higher than Kinsey found. Hunt’s results showed a lower percentage and a different pattern of same-sex sexual activity than Kinsey’s data. Hunt concluded that most such activity occurs as a form of adolescent experimentation; most of the women and men who had same-sex sexual expe- riences discontinued this form of sexuality by age 16. Hunt estimated that 2% of men and 1% of women were exclusively gay or lesbian in their sexual orientation.

Hunt found some evidence for a sexual revolution in the form of increases in certain sexual activities. For example, a total of 97% of the unmarried men and 67% of the unmarried women reported having intercourse by age 25 years, representing an increase in intercourse and a decrease in the double standard. By the 1970s, extramarital sex was more common, especially among younger women.

The Playboy Foundation survey also found evidence that more people were engaging in a wider variety of sexual activities than Kinsey reported. For example, a higher percentage of respondents in the Playboy Foundation survey reported oral–genital sexuality than in Kinsey’s surveys. Fellatio is oral stimulation of the male genitals, and cunnilingus is oral stimulation of the female genitals. Kinsey found a difference in popularity of oral–genital sexuality according to educational background: 60% of people with a college education, 20% of those with a high school education, and 10% of those with a grade school education had engaged in oral–genital sexual activity. Hunt reported that 90% of the young married couples in his survey said they had engaged in oral–genital stimulation, revealing a dramatic increase in prevalence and a leveling of social class differences.

In summary, Hunt’s Playboy Foundation survey showed that Kinsey was correct in con- cluding that people’s sexual behaviors are more varied than the social norms suggest. Hunt’s

Sexuality 285

estimates for same-sex sexuality were much lower than Kinsey’s fi gures, but Hunt found evidence for an increase in premarital, extramarital, and oral–genital sexual activity.

The National Health and Social Life Survey

Two major U.S. sex surveys appeared during the 1990s, one conducted by Samuel and Cyn- thia Janus (1993) and the other called the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) by a team headed by Edward Laumann et al. (1994). The NHSLS survey came closer to obtaining a representative sample.

Results from the NHSLS revealed a slightly different picture of sex in the United States than either the Kinsey or Hunt survey had shown. One difference was a continuation of the trend toward more liberal sexual standards, with sex serving either as an important factor in love relationships (regardless of marital status) or as a recreational activity (without any necessity for a committed relationship). Only around 30% of respondents expressed the traditional, conservative view that sex outside marriage is always wrong and that procreation is the main reason for having sex.

The other difference expressed in the NHSLS indicated some degree of conservatism concerning sex. For example, a low percentage of participants reported attraction to and practice of a variety of sexual behaviors. Indeed, the NHSLS results showed that vaginal intercourse was not only the most frequent form of sexual activity with a partner, but also the most appealing to both men and women. Giving and receiving oral sex and watching a partner undress were at least somewhat appealing to a majority of participants, but group sex, anal intercourse, sex with strangers, and forcing or being forced to do something sexual were not appealing to the majority of participants.

This survey also found gender differences in sexuality, just as the other surveys had done. One large gender difference related to the experience of fi rst intercourse: 28% of women but only 8% of men said that they did not want to have intercourse at the time but either did so out of affection for their partners or were forced to do so. Men also reported more varied sexual interests and behavior, including more lifetime sex partners and a slightly higher interest in group sex, anal intercourse, watching others do sexual things, visiting sex clubs, viewing sexually explicit books or videos, and giving and receiving oral sex. Men were more likely to masturbate, but women were more likely to report feeling guilty about masturbat- ing. Table 10.1 summarizes information from this survey.

Contrary to media depictions, “The general picture of sex with a partner in America shows that Americans do not have a secret life of abundant sex” (Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994, p. 122). The most common category for frequency of intercourse was a few times a month , and only about 7% reported having sex four or more times a week. In addition, about two-thirds of both men and women said that they had only one sex partner within the past year, with reports showing only small variations across different ethnic groups, religious affi liations, or educational levels. The NHSLS results refl ected a less sexually varied United States than the media or people’s imaginations often present, but it also showed an acceptance of sex for pleasure and outside the boundaries of marriage.

National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior

In 2010, Debby Herbenick and her colleagues (Herbenick et al., 2010) presented results from a new survey of sexual behavior, the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behav- ior (NSSHB). Using the Internet and sophisticated techniques to obtain a representative sample of U.S. residents, this group collected data from 5,856 men and women between 14 and 94 years old. These participants answered questions about their sexual experiences, including solo masturbation, partnered masturbation, giving and receiving oral sex, vaginal

286 Sexuality

intercourse, and anal intercourse. The researchers’ aim was to assess changes in sexual behav- ior that had occurred since the NHSLS.

Herbenick et al. reasoned that changes in U.S. society such as the availability of sexual infor- mation and pornography on the Internet, the use of drugs for erectile dysfunction, and cam- paigns to increase condom use may have prompted changes in sexual behavior. Their results confi rmed some similarities to and changes since the NHSLS in the 1990s. For example, the results for masturbation were similar to earlier studies—that behavior was reported as com- mon throughout all age ranges in the survey but more common for men than women. Vaginal intercourse was common for some age ranges but not others. For example, this type of sex was not common for young adolescents but was the most common form of partnered sex for men in their 20s and 30s and women in their 20s. After these ages, frequency of vaginal intercourse declined for both women and men. Anal intercourse is a less common sexual behavior, but it is not unusual for either men or women. More than 40% of 25- to 50-year-olds reported that they had engaged in this sexual behavior at some time in their lives.

Oral sex with a partner of the other sex was also a more common behavior in this survey than the previous sex surveys. For both women and men between ages 18 and 49, over half reported that they had engaged in oral sex within the past year. Oral sex with a same-sex partner was not a common experience for these participants, but its frequency varied a great deal with age. Around 14% of men in their 40s and 50s said that they had received oral sex from another man at some time during their lives, but less than 5% of women in most age groups said that they had received or given oral sex to another woman. For men, receptive anal intercourse was less common, but around 10% of men in several age groups reported this behavior.

This survey revealed that adolescents and adults in the United States engage in a variety of sexual behaviors. Consistent with other surveys, partnered sex is less common for younger and older people, especially older women. Also consistent with earlier surveys—married people have sex more often than those without partners (Reece et al., 2010). The frequency of a variety of sexual behaviors indicates a change from the NHSLS in the 1990s.

Gender Differences (and Similarities) in Sexual Attitudes and Behavior

The four major (and many smaller) sex surveys have shown gender differences in several sexual behaviors and in some attitudes toward sexuality. Although the more recent surveys have indi- cated a smaller variation in sexuality of men and women, even recent studies have indicated gender differences. Meta-analyses (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010) and sum- maries (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000; Fischtein, Herold, & Desmarais, 2007; Peplau, 2003) have indicated that gender differences exist in some aspects of sexuality but not in others.

Incidence of masturbation, use of pornography, frequency of casual sex, and permissive attitudes toward casual sex were higher among men than women (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). These differences are moderately large, whereas other gender dif- ferences in sexuality are small or nonexistent. This gender difference may relate to a tem- perament difference in a factor called surgency , the tendency to seek stimulation, including taking risks and behaving impulsively (Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006). This gender difference appears early in childhood and may constitute an underlying factor in many of the gender differences in sexuality.

The greater acceptance of casual premarital sex applies to men in a variety of cultures, including Canada, Africa, Hong Kong, Sweden, and all ethnic groups in the United States (Hatfi eld & Rapson, 1996). The term casual also seems to apply to online sex; about 84% of those who engage in this type of sexual activity are men (Cooper, Morahan-Martin, Mathy, & Maheu, 2002). In addition, men expressed more positive attitudes about casual online sexual relationships than women did (Grov, Gillespie, Royce, & Lever, 2011). (See According to the Media/According to the Research for more about cybersex.)

Sexuality 287

According to the Media . . . Sex is Just a Mouse Click Away

Tim Fountain (2003) described the joys of Internet sex: “The Worldwide Web offers us an opportunity to go to our graves having fulfi lled most of our sexual fantasies” (p. 21). According to Fountain, the Web offers a sexual banquet, regardless of one’s tastes. For gay men such as Fountain, chat rooms offer sexually oriented “chat” as well as arrangements for people to meet online and plan for sex in the real world, including websites specializing in casual sex.

Sex on the Internet offers a number of possibilities for online sexual activity, which people of all sexual orientation use (Grov et al., 2011; Lever, Grov, Royce, & Gil- lespie, 2008). The possibilities include fi nding sexual information, dating services, and sexual entertainment (Cooper, 2004). The entertainment activities consist of a variety of fantasies and interactions such as cybersex —using the Internet to exchange photos or sexual messages that lead to sexual gratifi cation.

The Internet offers what Al Cooper and his colleagues (Cooper, Delmonico, Griffi n- Shelley, & Mathy, 2004) called the Triple-A Engine —accessibility, anonymity, and afford- ability. The Internet has over 600 million users worldwide, and sex is the most researched topic; about a third of those online use the Internet to obtain some form of sexual informa- tion or entertainment. As Cooper suggested, the Internet may be the new sexual revolution.

As Fountain had discovered, gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals have been enthusi- astic about online sexual activities (Blackwell & Dziegielewski, 2012; Lever et al., 2008), along with others whose sexuality has been subject to restriction, such as individuals with disabilities or those with fetishes (Cooper, 2004). Online sexual activity opens the world to these individuals, so they are no longer restricted to their geographic location.

According to the Research . . . The Internet Offers New Possibilities for Sexual Addiction

The possibilities for sexual activity on the Internet are numerous, some of which are posi- tive and others of which present dangers (Whitty & Fisher, 2008). The positive possibili- ties include ready access to sexual information. However, most of the millions of people who use the Internet for online sex choose one of the entertainment options, viewing sex- ual images, participating in sexually oriented chat, or engaging in sexual fantasy activities.

For the large majority of users, online sexual activities serve as a type of recreational activity used for distraction and stress relief (Cooper et al., 2004). These users may consider their online sexual activity as entertainment, but their partners may feel that online sex is “cheating” (Zitzman & Butler, 2009), which indicates that even noncom- pulsive online sexual activity may present problems.

For some individuals, use develops into compulsive involvement with online sex (Beutel et al., 2011). Similar to other types of compulsions, problems arise when a person’s involvement begins to create diffi culties with personal relationships or work. Internet involvement in sexual activities decreases the likelihood of being involved in a satisfying personal relationship.

Large gender differences exist in online sexual activity (Cooper et al., 2004). Women are not as likely as men to be involved in online sexual activities—only about 15% of those who use the Internet for sexual activities are women. Those women participate in the same range of activities that men do—viewing sexually explicit photos, sexual chat, and fantasy sexual experiences. Contrary to stereotype, a larger proportion of female than male Net users develop problems (Ferree, 2003). Therefore, online sexual activity may create problems in men’s and women’s lives and relationships.

288 Sexuality

Other gender-related differences in sexuality were smaller, and some of the meta-analysis comparisons (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010) failed to show gender varia- tions. Table 10.2 shows some of the behaviors and attitudes from these meta-analyses, along with the magnitude of gender-related differences. However, the gender differences in atti- tudes toward sex may be larger than this meta-analysis revealed. All of the studies in this analysis were based on self-reports, which draw on explicit attitudes—attitudes that people are conscious of holding. Implicit attitudes are those that are automatically activated yet not in conscious awareness, and people may hold implicit attitudes that differ from their explicit attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). A study of implicit attitudes toward sexual words (Geer & Robertson, 2005) revealed that women held more negative implicit attitudes than men did.

Gender differences in sexuality may be smaller than research suggests. Self-reports rely on what participants reveal to researchers and are thus subject to distortion and misrepresenta- tion. For example, young men lie about the number of sex partners they have had as a way to increase their prestige (Jonason & Fisher, 2009). A procedure called the bogus pipeline helps researchers obtain more truthful responses by leading participants to believe that their responses are monitored by a polygraph (“lie detector”). One bogus pipeline study of sexual behavior and responses (Alexander & Fisher, 2003) showed very small differences in women’s

Table 10.2 Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors Showing and Failing to Show Gender-Related Differences

Sexual Behaviors/Attitudes Direction of Difference

Large Differences

Incidence of masturbation Higher for men

Acceptability of casual sex Higher for men

Moderate to Small Differences

Acceptability of sexual permissiveness Higher for men

Incidence of sex in committed relationship Higher for men

Incidence of intercourse by engaged couples Higher for men

Acceptability of premarital sex Higher for men

Age at fi rst intercourse Lower for men

Frequency of intercourse Higher for men

Incidence of same-gender sexual experiences Higher for men

Anxiety, fear, and guilt associated with sex Higher for women

Acceptability of double standard of sexual behavior Higher for women

Acceptability of extramarital sex Higher for men

Number of sexual partners Higher for men

No Differences

Incidence of oral sex

Incidence of kissing

Incidence of petting

Acceptability of masturbation

Acceptability of same-gender sexuality

Belief that gays and lesbians should be given civil rights

Sexual satisfaction

Sexuality 289

and men’s responses to questions about sexual behavior. Male and female participants gave similar estimates of the number of lifetime sexual partners, age at fi rst intercourse, volun- tary exposure to sexually explicit material, and frequency of masturbation. A second study (Fisher, 2013) indicated that men’s responses changed more than women’s when questioned about sexual behaviors using the bogus pipeline. These results suggest that men’s and wom- en’s sexual behavior may not differ as much as most self-report studies indicate.

Masters and Johnson’s Approach

As noted earlier, researchers who want to observe sexual behavior directly can conduct their studies on nonhuman animals, or they can enlist the cooperation of people who are willing to engage in sex in a research laboratory. Such participants are far from average, but they can furnish information about sex that is more objective than self-reports. The most famous researchers to take this approach were William Masters and Virginia Johnson.

Masters and Johnson recruited volunteers to participate in sexual activity in a research laboratory while their physiological reactions were monitored. Those who volunteered con- sisted of married couples as well as single men and women who, undoubtedly, were not representative of the U.S. population. Participants were also required to regularly achieve orgasm, which further restricted the characteristics of the sample. Masters and Johnson’s focus was physiology, so these issues were not important to them. Others (Kaschak & Tiefer, 2001; Tiefer, 1995) argued that Masters and Johnson’s selection of participants and their own preconceived notions about the sexual experience biased the interpretation of their results.

In these laboratory studies, the married couples had intercourse, masturbated each other, or engaged in oral–genital stimulation. The unmarried participants did not have sex with a partner; the men masturbated and the women either masturbated or were stimulated by an artifi cial penis designed to measure vaginal responses during sexual arousal and orgasm. In addition to collecting information by measuring genital activity during sex, Masters and Johnson gathered physiological measurements such as heart rate, muscle contraction, and dilation of the blood vessels from both men and women. They analyzed their fi ndings (Masters & Johnson, 1966) into four phases of sexual activity—excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. They contended that these four phases describe the sequence and experience of sexual arousal and orgasm for both women and men. Table 10.3 shows the four phases, including and the organs affected and the responses that are the same and those that differ for women’s and men’s sexual response.

Not only did Masters and Johnson’s research suggest that both women and men are similar in experiencing four stages of sexual response, but it also failed to support Freud’s contention that women experience two types of orgasm—clitoral and vaginal orgasm. He believed that girls experience clitoral orgasm during masturbation, beginning during early childhood, but women are immature if they continue to require clitoral stimulation for orgasm. Freudian theory described women who experience orgasm through intercourse as psychologically healthier than women who have only clitoral orgasms. Masters and Johnson’s results showed that women experience only one type of orgasm—a clitoral orgasm. Some women have clitoral orgasms during intercourse and some do not; intercourse may not provide suffi cient clitoral stimulation to produce orgasm in some women. This important fi nding has not had the impact it should have. A study on research, teaching, and popular usage of sexual terms (Ogletree & Ginsburg, 2000) revealed that the word clitoris is not used as the female counterpart to penis. Indeed, the word clitoris is not often used, and this omission may have important implications for sexuality.

Masters and Johnson’s research has been infl uential but also controversial. As with other physiological processes, individual variations exist in the experience of these stages of sexual

290 Sexuality

Table 10.3 Masters and Johnson’s Phases of Sexual Response

Women Experience Men Experience

Phrase 1—Excitement

Increased muscle tension, heart rate, blood pressure, breathing

Increased blood fl ow to genitals

Clitoris and nipples become erect Penis becomes erect

Vaginal walls swell Testicles swell

Vaginal lubrication begins Scrotum tightens

Breasts enlarge

Phase 2—Plateau

Continuation and intensifi cation of changes from Stage 1, including muscle tension, heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate

Clitoris becomes very sensitive Testes withdraw into scrotum

Outer vagina becomes engorged with blood and swells

Phase 3—Orgasm

Blood pressure, heart rate, and breathing reach highest level

Muscle tension release

Flush may appear over the entire body

Vaginal muscles and uterus contract rhythmically Muscle contraction in base of penis result in ejaculation of semen

Phase 4—Resolution

Physical status returns to normal levels

If stimulated, may experience sexual arousal quickly and may experience multiple orgasms

If stimulated, do not experience sexual arousal quickly; require recovery time

Source: Information from Human Sexual Response by William Masters and Virginia Johnson, 1966, Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

response, and Masters and Johnson ignored these variations (Tiefer, 1995). Their conceptu- alization became so well accepted that people who do not conform to these stages are open to being diagnosed with sexual dysfunctions. The Masters and Johnson research has been valuable in measuring sexual physiology, but their research fi ndings may not be as universal as they contended.

Childhood Sexuality: Exploration and Abuse

Sexuality begins before puberty. Even as infants, children take part in sexual exploration, and they are sometimes the victims of sexual abuse. Infant boys have erections, and infant girls experience erections of the clitorises as well as vaginal lubrication (DeLamater & Friedrich, 2002). Infants touch their genitals as they explore their bodies, and this exploration teaches children that their bodies can produce pleasurable sensations. Preschool-aged children manip- ulate their genitals, sometimes several times a day.

Children’s sexuality is not equivalent to adult sexual behavior; their underlying motiva- tions and cognitions differ (Kilmer & Shahinfar, 2006). However, parents who notice their children’s genital self-explorations may accept them, or they may be surprised or shocked.

Sexuality 291

Gendered Voices: What Some Early Adolescents Have Learned about Sex

Linda Charmaraman and Corinne McKamey (2011) talked to urban early adolescents about their experiences of learning about sex from family, school, and the Internet. The messages that these adolescents received were fi lled with warnings and threats of danger as well as parents’ reluctance to discuss sex.

A boy’s grandmother told him to “remain a virgin or else his weewee was going to fall off” (p. 11).

One girl reported that her mother said that “I’m not supposed to have sex until I’m fi fty- one” (p. 11).

Another girl said that her brother told her that she “shouldn’t be like grandma, having kids when I’m sixteen and dropping out of school” (pp. 12–13).

Yet another girl reported her mother asked, “Why are you in sex-ed class? Are you preg- nant?” (p. 15).

Their attitude and their method of dealing with their children’s masturbation can convey positive or negative messages about sexuality, and these messages can have a lasting impact (DeLamater & Friedrich, 2002). Parents and other adults who say, “That’s not nice,” or “Nice boys and girls don’t do that,” or who move their children’s hands away from their genitals send negative messages about sexuality (Surtees, 2005).

Another aspect of childhood sexuality that may make parents uncomfortable revolves around their children’s questions about sexuality, pregnancy, and birth as well as their chil- dren’s sexual exploration with other children. By age 4, most children have a concept of gender and women’s and men’s roles. They know that women have babies and men do not, and they know the connection among romance, kissing, and sexuality (Blaise, 2010). Parents may feel embarrassed about giving straightforward answers to questions about sex, so they substitute terms make the discussion easier for them but may confuse children. Parents’ discomfort complicates the delivery of answers with correct information without excessive details to young children’s questions about sex and birth.

“I would love for him to grow up to be a doctor, but I sure wish he’d wait another twenty years to specialize in gynecology,” the mother of a 5-year-old said (Segal & Segal, 1993, p. 131). This mother humorously expressed her concern over her son and the neighbor’s daughter, who were exploring each other’s genitals. Such behavior is normal and more of an expression of curiosity than sexuality (Thanasiu, 2004).

Parents may be unaware that sexual explorations during childhood include same-sex as well as other-sex sexual play, but both are common. In studies with high school students (Larsson & Svedin, 2002) and college students (Whealin, Zinzow, Salstrom, & Jackson, 2007), students recalled their childhood sexual experiences, and about 80% remembered some sexual activity, most often with an age-mate. Sexual contact also occurs between siblings, and parents are not aware of most such contacts. The majority of such contact consists of examining the genitals and touching, and a low percentage of sibling sexual activity includes attempted or successful intercourse. Nonetheless, sexual activity between siblings qualifi es as incest —sexual activity between family members. An early study (Finkelhor, 1980) reported that 15% of college women and 10% of college men recalled

292 Sexuality

sexual experiences with their siblings. A later study (Whealin et al., 2007) found higher percentages—28% of men and 26% of women. Some of these college students did not believe that the experience had harmed them, but many others evaluated this sexual contact as unwanted. Sexual contact between siblings is more common than between parents and children (Krienert & Walsh, 2011).

Age is a critical factor in defi ning sexual exploitation of children (Finkelhor, 1984). When sexual contact occurs between children who are close to the same age, this activ- ity may fall into the category of exploration . When a child has sexual contact with an adult or an adolescent at least 5 years older than the child, that activity falls into the category of exploitation or sexual abuse , but children and young adolescents may also use coercion or force on other children, which is abuse. Also included as abusive are sexual relationships between adolescents and adults whose age exceeds the adolescents’ age by at least 10 years.

Incest is one form of sexually abusive relationships, but children can also be sexually abused by nonrelatives, including strangers and adults in positions of authority. The Kinsey et al. (1948, 1953) surveys included questions about childhood sexual experiences with adults, and his results revealed that 25% of girls and 10% of boys reported such contact. More than half the cases involved adults whom the children did not know, but later research (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [U.S. DHHS], 2015) has indicated that most children know their abusers.

Determining the rate of sexual abuse of children is diffi cult. Many cases are never reported, making law enforcement data incomplete. Survey data tend to come from memories of victims and perpetrators, both of whom may be inaccurate. Not surprisingly, research has yielded varying rates for sexual abuse, ranging from 11 to 40% for women and from 3 to 16% for men (Bagley & King, 1990) in the United States. Examining the results from many reviews (Bagley & King, 1990; Greenfi eld, 1996; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; USDHHS, 2015; Whealin et al., 2007), including one worldwide meta-analysis with almost 10 million people (Stoltenborgh, van IJzendoorn, Euser, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2011), reveals some commonalities. The world over, girls are victims of sexual abuse more often than boys, and men are the instigators of abuse far more frequently than women; men represent between 94 and 100% of those who abuse girls and between 60 and 84% of those who abuse boys. Both girls and boys are at risk during their entire childhood and adolescence from family members, family friends, adult authority fi gures, and strangers. The risk is not equal for all ages or from all adults; pre- and early adolescents are the most vulnerable. Chil- dren in Asia are at the lowest risk, and girls in Australia and boys in Africa at the highest risk (Stoltenborgh et al., 2011). Table 10.4 shows the range of estimates and the characteristics of sexual abusers and victims.

The emphasis in research and therapy has been on boys and men as perpetrators and girls and women as victims, and this image is so prominent that people have trouble thinking of women as sexual abusers (Denov, 2003; Kramer & Bowman, 2011). Some women victimize boys in the guise of initiating them into sexuality, and boys may have diffi culty identifying this activity as abuse (Larsson & Svedin, 2002). In addition, women sometimes act as part- ners to men who sexually abuse children (Seto, 2004). However, some female sex abusers act alone and share characteristics with men who perpetrate sexual abuse. For example, a majority are family members, and most abuse is heterosexual (Seto, 2004). Female abusers tend to choose younger victims (Peter, 2009). Children have more diffi culty reporting a female than a male perpetrator, and authorities have trouble recognizing such behavior in women (Denov, 2003).

Sexuality 293

Gendered Voices : My Parents Never Said Anything Until . . .

“My parents never said anything to us about sexual abuse until my brother was molested,” a teenager said. “Then our whole family talked sexual abuse. My brother had to tell us what happened, tell us what the person had done very explicitly. Maybe that wasn’t a good thing for him to have to do, because he had to talk about it a lot, but we learned about what to be careful about. And they never said anything before he was molested.

“It was tough on the family, because the person who molested him was a cousin. He was about 4 or 5 years older than my brother, and our families don’t speak to each other anymore. It was hard to know what to do, because the cousin had been molested when he was younger, so he was just repeating what happened to him. Should he be punished for doing what he had learned? My brother was still hurt, but it was diffi cult not to feel sorry for my teenage cousin.

“We went for counseling as a family, and I think it helped. I hear that it can be much worse to ignore it, because it won’t go away if you don’t talk about it. We talked about it afterward, but not before something happened.”

Table 10.4 Summary of Offender and Victim Characteristics for Childhood Sexual Abuse

Characteristic Range of Estimated Occurrence

Lowest Highest

Girls abused while under age 16 (average age 10.2–10.7 years) 11.0% 40.0%

Girls who rated the experience negatively

Girls whose abuser was male 94.0 100

Boys abused while under age 16 (average age 11.2–12 years) 3.0 8.6

Boys who rated the experience negatively 38.0

Boys whose abuser was male 83.0 84.0

Children whose offender was a stranger 11.0 51.0

Children whose offender was a friend or an acquaintance 33.0 49.0

Children whose offender was a relative 14.0 50.0

Girls whose offender was a sibling 15.0

Boys whose offender was a sibling 10.0

Children whose offender was a biological parent 1.0 6.8

Girls whose offender was a stepfather 7.6 17.0

Children who had force or threats used against them 55.0

Children whose abuse consisted of exhibition 26.0 28.0

Children whose abuse consisted of being fondled 26.0 40.0

Children whose abuse consisted of forced fondling of offender 10.0 14.0

Children whose abuse consisted of intercourse 15.0 18.0

Source: Based on Child Sexual Abuse: The Search for Healing by C. Bagley and K. King, 1990, London: Tavistock.

294 Sexuality

Probably the most famous type of sexual abuse involves biological fathers and their daugh- ters, but this type of sexual abuse is not the most common. Stepfathers or mothers’ boyfriends are much more likely to force this type of relationship. In a classic study (Russell, 1986), stepdaughters were targets of sexual abuse (17%) by stepfathers much more commonly than biological daughters (2%). Newer research (Stroebel et al., 2012) showed that 1.2% of bio- logical fathers were perpetrators of incest with their daughters. Such cases, however, are most damaging, creating both short-term and long-term consequences (Noll, Trickett, & Putnam, 2003; Stroebel et al., 2012). The short-term effects include fear, anxiety, depression, anger, sexually inappropriate behavior, and academic problems (Dube et al., 2005). The long-term effects include posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, suicide and suicide attempts, sexual adjustment problems, substance abuse disorders, and problems in their marriages (Dube et al., 2005; Stroebel et al., 2012). Few gender differences exist between boys and girls who have been the victims of sexual abuse; both suffer similar negative effects from their victimization (Dube et al., 2005; Paolucci, Genuis, & Violato, 2001).

Despite the impression that news reports have created about increasing danger from pedophiles, the sexual abuse of children may be declining (Graff, 2012; Jones, Finkelhor, & Halter, 2006). The rate of child sexual abuse remains distressingly high, but that rate has declined over the past 20 years. Prominent researcher David Finkelhor (in Graff, 2012) speculated that more effective treatment for at-risk adolescents and the publicity about childhood sexual abuse cases such as Jerry Sandusky and the scandals involving pedophile priests have sensitized the public, making people more vigilant about childhood sexual abuse. Thus, these lower numbers represent some success in the efforts to stop the sexual abuse of children.

In summary, childhood sexuality is more active than most parents imagine; it begins during infancy when children explore and manipulate their own genitals and then progresses to curiosity about and exploration of others’ genitals. Although parents may fi nd these signals of sexuality distressing, such behavior is normal. Sexual exploitation also occurs when older ado- lescents or adults initiate sexual activity with children. Results of various surveys indicate that at least 15% of women and 5% of men have been sexually abused as children. Girls are much more likely to be abused than boys, and men are much more likely than women to be abus- ers. There are few gender differences in short-term and long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse, which include posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and suicide, as well as adult sexual and substance abuse problems. However, the rate of sexual abuse may be declining.

Heterosexuality

Most people develop erotic or sexual interests that result in attraction to people of the other sex rather than people of the same sex. That is, most people develop a heterosexual, rather than a same-sex, sexual orientation. Signs of heterosexual erotic interest may begin dur- ing childhood, but sexual activity during childhood mainly takes the form of masturbation and exploratory play, which can be directed toward same- or other-sex children (Larsson & Svedin, 2002). Thus, children’s sexuality often is not clearly heterosexual.

During late childhood and preadolescence, children seek the company of same-gender peers and avoid associating with other-gender peers (see Chapters 6 and 9 ). This gender segregation restricts the opportunities for heterosexual activity, but does not signal children’s lack of heterosexual interest. Indeed, children often tease each other by announcing who “likes” whom and by threatening to kiss others who are unwilling (Thorne, 1993). Such games demonstrate an awareness of heterosexuality and an early knowledge of gender roles in heterosexual interactions.

Sexuality 295

During Adolescence

Although a distressing number of children are introduced to sexuality through force or coer- cion, adolescence is the typical period of sexual initiation. These activities consist of formal and a great deal more informal education. As the headline story for this chapter pointed out, contemporary American culture discourages adolescent sexuality but also sends many messages about sex and its pleasures. These messages pose problems for adolescents who see and hear about the promised joys of sex but are urged not to participate.

These messages are not equal for girls and boys. Girls receive many more messages to beware of sex than boys do (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1997); while abstinence-oriented sex edu- cation conveys information about the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, some programs focus on building guilt in participants to frighten them about premarital sex (Schalet, 2009). Few question the dangers of sex for early adolescents. Teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, date rape, and sexual exploitation are possibilities for teenagers who engage in sex. But most sexuality education authorities contend that teaching children to fear sex is a bad strategy and argue that abstinence-only programs are inadequate (Sullivan, 2009).

Sexuality education is more successful when the program includes information about sexual health, birth control, relationships, and decision making such as the one implemented in Anderson County, South Carolina, and described in the headline story for this chapter

Photo 10.1 Sexuality is an important part of people’s lives, beginning during adolescence.

296 Sexuality

(Sullivan, 2009). Including an abstinence component may be desirable but not adequate (Santelli et al., 2006). Messages about the dangers of sex do not help adolescents develop knowledge or attitudes for healthy sexual relationships at some future point in their lives.

Deborah Tolman (2002) heard about young women’s sense of vulnerability in extensive interviews with adolescent girls about their sexuality, including “dilemmas of desire,” prob- lems in reconciling sexual desire with being the “nice” girls that parents, peers, and schools urged them to become. The girls repeatedly mentioned the reluctance of their families to acknowledge their sexuality and the frequent reminders of the dangers that sex could bring, especially in the form of pregnancy. In the intervening years, girls have supposedly become empowered in their sexuality, but Tolman (2012) considered that girls have become sexual- ized in terms that are attractive to boys but perhaps not authentic to themselves. Girls still have dilemmas of desire that boys do not face.

Despite the emphasis on marriage as the appropriate context for sexual activity, most people do not wait until marriage to have sex; premarital sex has become more common over the past decades in the United States. During the 1930s and 1940s, a majority of young men had intercourse before marriage (Kinsey et al., 1948), but a substantially smaller percentage of young women did (Kinsey et al., 1953). This discrepancy refl ected the double standard, which has decreased over the past 60 years. In the 1950s, approximately 13% of girls and young women were sexually active, but by 2010, the percentage was 46.2% (Martinez, Copen, & Abma, 2011). Age of fi rst intercourse for young women also declined between the 1950s and 2010, going from 19 years to about 17 years of age.

Gendered Voices: Sex De-Education

A shiver goes up my spine remembering my “sex education” experience in the sixth grade. Now, I don’t know if the teacher had some problems with sexuality in general, or if perhaps it was part of her job, but I’ll never forget the fear of sex and sexual contact she put into about 95%, if not all, of the young girls in that class.

The majority of the information was in reference to reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases. My teacher brought in this old, old medical book and proceeded to show these pictures of people with severe stage STDs. These pictures showed people with ulcerated sores all over their bodies; parts of their fl esh were falling off, and she said, “This is what happens to people who have sex when they’re not married.” It was disgusting, not to mention terrifying.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, when she taught the section on the male genitalia, she brought another visual aid. She brought in a rubber replica of a male penis and testicles, and the thing was HUGE and she represented it as actual size. I’ve never heard so many young girls gasp in terror at the same time in my life. She was very quick to relay how painful sex with a man was. I never understood her motivation. She was married with three kids. Maybe her husband was that big, but it seems unlikely.

To this day, I still wonder how many of these young girls were traumatized by their “sex education” and how that affected their fi rst sexual encounter with a man. I’ve also won- dered what techniques were used to teach the boys in our school.

The changes for boys and young men have been smaller than for women. In the 1950s, over 50% of boys and men reported being sexually active, and that percentage has fallen slightly, to around 41.8% (Martinez et al., 2011). The age of fi rst intercourse decreased from 18 in the 1950s to 17 in the 2010. Considering only intercourse biases the picture of

Sexuality 297

adolescent sexuality; a larger percentage of teens engage in oral sex than vaginal intercourse (Halpern-Felsher, Cornell, Kropp, & Tschann, 2005).

Many studies have shown ethnic differences for age of fi rst intercourse (Cavazos-Rehg et al., 2009; Martinez et al., 2011; Wells & Twenge, 2005). Recent results (Martinez et al., 2011) reveal small differences, but adolescents tend to misremember and misrepresent their sexual experiences to conform to gender stereotypes, just as adults do (Alexander & Fisher, 2003). Thus, the differences among African American, Hispanic, Asian American, and White adolescents may be inconsequential. However, acculturation may be a signifi cant factor in early intercourse; for example, Mexican American teens whose families were less acculturated to U.S. culture reported later ages of fi rst intercourse than White teens (Adams, McGuire, Walsh, Basta, & LeCroy, 2005).

The decision to have intercourse may represent an attempt to make the transition to adulthood (Ott & Pfeiffer, 2009), but about two-thirds of teens who have had intercourse report regret that they did not wait longer (Martino, Collins, Elliott, Kanouse, & Berry, 2009). The reasons for girls’ and boys’ decisions to have sex often differ. For boys, having sex is a means not only to pleasure but also to social prestige (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1997; Jonason & Fisher, 2009). “For teenage boys, their fi rst sexual experience may be the primary symbol of manhood—a rite of passage” (Stark, 1989, p. 12). Boys feel pressure from their peers to “score,” and their sharing the stories is a way to gain admiration from their peers. The pressure boys experience may be conveyed to the girls they date by demands for sex. Boys may have sex to prove a point. Girls may refuse sex to prove a point, or they may give in to this pressure and have sex. Women who readily consent to sex are at risk for being considered promiscuous, and that potential consequence may infl uence the decision to say “no” more than a lack of desire (Tolman, 2002). Openly acknowledging desire may lead to many unkind labels (Kreager & Staff, 2009) because the double standard for sexual behavior tends to be stronger among adolescents than adults.

Messages about the dangers of sex have some basis—forced sex, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases are all too common in the lives of adolescents. Date rape , or acquain- tance rape , is forced sexual activity between people who are dating or otherwise acquainted. Chapter 8 discussed rape as an aggressive crime disproportionately committed by men. Adolescents’ sexual scripts conceptualize rape as an attack by a stranger (Krahé, Bieneck, & Schienberger-Olwig, 2007), but the majority of rapes and other acts involving forced or coerced sex occurs between acquaintances.

A classic study by Mary Koss, Christine Gidycz, and Nadine Wisniewski (1987) presented a survey of college students about sexual activities and found that 54% of the young women in the survey claimed to have been the victims of some type of coerced or forced sexual activ- ity at some time during their lives, and over 15% had been raped. A review of the prevalence of forced sex (Post, Biroscak, & Barboza, 2011) confi rmed Koss’s fi ndings by revealing that unwanted sexual contact is a common experience; between 10.6 and 18% of women report- ing unwanted sexual contact that met the defi nition of rape.

Some gender differences in attitudes increase the risk for coercive sexual behavior. For example, fl irting does not carry the same meaning for boys as for girls; men tend to see fl irt- ing as more sexual than women do (La France, Henningsen, Oates, & Shaw, 2009), which may lead to different expectancies for sexual activity. Other research (Willan & Pollard, 2003) has indicated that men’s expectancies for sex were set early in an encounter, and those expec- tancies were resistant to change, regardless of protests from the women involved. Research with high school students in Israel (Geiger, Fischer, & Eshet, 2004) revealed widespread attitudes that support sexual coercion, such as blaming the situation rather than the perpe- trator for rape, minimizing the seriousness of rape, and justifying rape by believing that the victim had intended to have sex. Both female and male students held these attitudes, but

298 Sexuality

young men were much more likely than young women to believe in these rape myths. Thus, adolescents may hold attitudes that allow for coercive and violent sex.

Concern over pregnancy is another issue for adolescents who have sex—an anxiety that affects girls more than boys. Although some sexuality education includes the full range of birth control options, the abstinence view is more common and emphasizes the danger of sex to both girls and boys. The concern is not without reason. The United States has a higher rate of pregnancies among teens than any other industrialized country: in 2008, 69.8 of every 1,000 teenaged girls between 15 and 19 years old living in the United States got pregnant (Ventura, Curtin, Abma, & Henshaw, 2012); in 2010, the rate was 57 per 1,000 (Sedgh et al., 2015). Although these rates are high, they represent about a 40% decline since the early 1990s.

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) represent even more of a danger for adolescents than others. One of the objections to abstinence-only sexuality education has been its failure to provide information about STDs and prevention (Santelli et al., 2006). Indeed, adolescents who made a pledge to remain sexually abstinent until marriage experience a similar rate of STDs as other adolescents (Christopher Trenholm, Devaney, Fortson, Quay, & Wheeler, 2008), demonstrating that this approach is not effective.

In summary, as adolescent sexuality becomes increasingly oriented toward heterosexual encounters, young people receive messages of the dangers of sex. Girls have always received messages of danger and vulnerability rather than pleasure, but all students in abstinence-only sexuality education may receive similar messages. Such programs do not best serve adolescents in preventing sexually transmitted diseases or preparing for future sexuality. First intercourse typically occurs during adolescence, and gender differences in the age of fi rst intercourse and rates of sexual activity have diminished over the past 60 years. Nonetheless, adolescent sexual- ity poses risks such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

During Adulthood

Traditionally, marriage has not only been a major transition, but also the primary context for adult sexuality, often in the form of vaginal intercourse. The more recent studies of college students and surveys with more representative samples have indicated that the standards for sexual behavior have changed. Increases in sexual activity among female adolescents and increases in the acceptability of a variety of sexual activities suggest that both young women and men accept more frequent and more varied sexual behaviors. Sexuality has become an important part of life for young adults, regardless of their marital status (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000).

Despite the importance of sexual satisfaction for adults, some are celibate. Celibacy , refraining from sexual activity, is sometimes a voluntary choice. For example, some reli- gions require celibacy for clergy and for those who are not married. Inspired by religion or other codes of personal morality, some people choose celibacy, but the number of young adults who have sex before they are married is high—around 84% (Regnerus & Uecker, 2011). Research on those who are celibate (Donnelly, Burgess, Anderson, Davis, & Dillard, 2001; Netting, 1992; Netting & Burnett, 2004) revealed that reasons for refraining from intercourse include moral or religious values, fear of STDs, and lack of opportunity. Among college students (Netting & Burnett, 2004), 36% of young women chose celibacy, about one-third of whom were waiting for love, and 25% of young men, about one-third of whom were waiting for a willing partner. However, not engaging in intercourse did not equal not having sex: 30% of the college students who were not engaging in intercourse were having oral sex.

Sexuality 299

Between 10 and 12% of men and 14 and 16% of women reported no sex partner within the past year (Butler, 2005; Laumann et al., 1994). Lifelong celibacy is, however, unusual: Only 2.9% said they had never had a sex partner. Those who are ill or whose partners have died are especially likely to be celibate, and both circumstances are associated with increas- ing age. Thus, celibacy increases sharply after age 60. Older women’s longer life expectancy makes them far more likely to be celibate than men of the same age.

Monogamy means having only one sexual partner in a committed love relationship. This choice represents the ideal for many people within many cultures (Christopher & Sprecher, 2001; Hatfi eld & Rapson, 1996), but lifelong monogamy represents the actual lifestyle for a smaller number. Despite advocating monogamy, many people practice serial monogamy , in which a person has relationships with a series of partners, one at a time (Donnelly et al., 2001; Netting & Burnett, 2004). Series of exclusive dating partners and divorce followed by remarriage are examples of this pattern. Others believe in monogamy but have no cur- rent sexual partner, and still others say that they believe in monogamy but have sex with other partners (Wilkins & Dalessandro, 2013). Thus, several departures from monogamy allow people to subscribe to the ideal without adhering to the practice of having one sexual partner for life.

Women tend to endorse monogamy more strongly than men, but in the United States, about 99% of both male and female college students (Pedersen, Miller, Putcha-Bhagavatula, & Yang, 2002) said that they wanted to settle down with one exclusive sexual partner at some point in their lives (but not necessarily now). Another study of college students (Netting & Burnett, 2004) found that 57% of the women and 54% of the men were classifi ed as monogamous. The discrepancy between the ideal and the practice of monogamy relates to the social atmosphere of college and young adulthood, which is a culture in which sexuality plays a large role (Regnerus & Uecker, 2011; Wilkins & Dalessandro, 2013). These “emerg- ing adults” may value monogamy but may also see themselves as exempt from the rules of adult society, including a strict version of monogamy.

For married couples, monogamy is the most common style of sexuality. Around the world, monogamy is the most valued relationship choice (Schwartz, Serafi ni, & Cantor, 2013). Over 90% of married couples reporting in the NHSLS were monogamous in the year prior to the study (Laumann et al., 1994). Couples who are not married are less often monoga- mous: Unmarried cohabiting heterosexual partners (76.7%), those who had never been married and were not cohabiting (38%), and those who were divorced or separated (40.5%) were less likely to be monogamous.

For all types of couples, failure to maintain the ideal of monogamy can cause major rela- tionship problems. People become upset when their partners have sex with someone else (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000). The stereotype is that men become jealous over sexual infi delities, whereas women’s jealousy is sparked by emotional infi delities, but research has failed to confi rm these predictions (Nannini & Meyers, 2000; Russell & Harton, 2005). Women were more upset than men by both types of infi delities, and both men and women were more upset by infi delities that involved a sexual component than an emotional one.

Some people choose sexual freedom over monogamy, opting for a sexual style of free exper- imentation. This choice is most common among young, unmarried people (Laumann et al., 1994; Netting, 1992; Netting & Burnett, 2004). People who choose this style tend to value sexual freedom and want to participate in a variety of sexual relationships. Indeed, “hook- ing up” has become widespread among college students and other young adults. This term may apply to sexual activity without a personal relationship or “friends with benefi ts,” who are nonromantic friends who have a sexual relationship (Paul, Wenzel, & Harvey, 2008). Studies of teens (Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2006) and college students (McGinty, Knox, & Zusman, 2007) showed that having sex with someone outside a dating relationship

300 Sexuality

was common: More than 50% of sexually active participants had done so. Motivations for friends with benefi ts relationships may include the lack of commitment in such relationships, which allows participants to concentrate on sexual pleasure. Some participants reported this aspect as a satisfying and attractive element of the relationship (Williams & Jovanovic, 2015). However, some participants harbored hopes that these sexual relationships would develop into romantic ones, and these hopes were slightly more common among women than men. Among all adults (Laumann et al., 1994), a small percentage of both men and women reported having fi ve or more sex partners in the year prior to the survey. Table 10.5 summarizes the styles of sexuality among the college students and adults.

Many people believe that older people have little interest in sex and no longer partici- pate in sexual activities, but a survey of individuals between 57 and 85 years old (Waite, Laumann, Das, & Schumm, 2009) revealed otherwise. Indeed, older adults reported many similarities in sexual attitudes and behavior to younger people, but some differences also appeared. Despite the stereotypes of nonsexual older people, sexual activity was not uncom- mon; a majority of participants who had partners reported sexual activity at least once a

Table 10.5 Styles of Sexuality among College Students and Adults

Style Chosen Percentage Comments on Choices

Women Men

College Students*

Celibacy 36% 25% Accepted abstinence before marriage; waiting for the right partner; waiting for an opportunity for sex (especially men)

Monogamy 25 23 Were currently monogamous 18 15 Had had only one partner during their lives

Serially Monogamous 14 16 Currently had one sex partner but had another partner(s) during past year

Free Experimenter 7 20 Valued freedom of expression, including expression of sexuality

Never Married Adults**

Celibacy (no sex partners) 24.5% 17.4% Waiting for partner; believed in sex only within marriage

Monogamy (one sex partner) 50 38.3 Believed in monogamy but not in waiting for marriage to have sex

Sexually Active but Not Monogamous (2–4 sex partners)

20.9 32.1 May represent a series of partners

Free Experimenter (5 or more partners)

4.6 12.0 Young adults were much more likely than older adults to be in this group

Married Adults**

Celibacy (no sex partners) 2.7% 1.7% Partner absent; illness; bad relationship

Monogamy (one sex partner) 94.8 92.2 Commitment to sexual exclusivity

Sexually Active but Not Monogamous (2–4 sex partners)

2.1 4.9 Represents affairs or casual sex

Free Experimenter (5 or more partners)

0.01 1.1 Represents affairs, casual sex, and paid sex

Sources: *Data based on Netting and Burnett (2004).

**Data based on Laumann et al. (1994), and the number of reported sex partners within the past 12 months.

Sexuality 301

month, even in the oldest age group. However, age was a factor in sexual activity; participants reported a decline in interest and sexual activity with aging. In addition, many older people lack partners, especially women 75 or older, almost 60% of whom did not have partners. Figure 10.1 shows some of the changes in sexual behavior and attitudes as individuals age. The similarities with younger adults included an endorsement of the importance of sex and a defi nition of sex as vaginal intercourse. Similar gender differences included greater sexual interest and a desire for more frequent sex among men as well as a weaker endorsement of monogamy.

The sexual attitudes and behaviors of women and men show few differences throughout the lifespan, but those few differences may have larger implications for heterosexuality, espe- cially the choices of monogamy or free experimentation. One of the large gender differences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Men Women Men Women Men Women Has current

partner Sex in past

year Say satisfactory sex is essential to a relationship

P er

ce nt

ag e

A gr

ee m

en t

89 .1

84 .8

78 .4

74 .1

61 .6

40 .4

83 .7

67 .0

38 .5

61 .6

39 .5

16 .7

76 .4

79 .1

71 .7 73

.6 67

.071 .6

57 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 85

Age

Figure 10.1 Prevalence of Sexual Activity and Attitudes among Individuals Aged 57–85

Source: Data from “Sexuality: Measures of Partnerships, Practices, Attitudes, and Problems in the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Study,” by L. J. Waite, E. O. Laumann, A. Das, & L. P. Schumm, 2011, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 64B (S1), Tables 1, 2, and 3.

302 Sexuality

in sexuality has been in the acceptability of casual sex, with men being more acceptant than women (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). Women are encouraged to associate sex with love, and they come to believe that sex should occur in the context of a committed relationship, whereas men may not be so relationship centered (McCormick, 1994). The meaning of sex for women and men may continue to differ, but some research (Krahé et al., 2007; Williams & Jovanovic, 2015) suggests that some gender convergence is occurring in the acceptance of casual sex.

Even small gender differences may have large implications, forming areas of confl ict for couples. For women, the association between commitment and sex leads them to believe that commitment should exist before having sex, but men may not share these requirements or expectations. A study of dating scripts for college students (Morr Serewicz & Gale, 2008) revealed that men included expectations of more sexual activity in their fi rst date scripts than women did. Gender is not the only factor that infl uences expectations for sex (Emmers- Sommer et al., 2010). When men ask and pay for dates, their expectations for sex are higher than other combinations of these factors. These differing expectations could be a source of confl ict if men begin to pressure women to have sex and the women do not feel ready, or if women refuse sex when men believe that their relationship warrants it.

The difference in acceptability of casual sex can also have an impact on sex outside the primary relationship. Women are more likely to be monogamous than men, and they tend to value monogamy; men tend to consider monogamy a sacrifi ce (Schmookler & Bursik, 2007). The perception of what constitutes “cheating” also follows stereotypical patterns (Sprecher, Regan, & McKinney, 1998). When the man has sex outside marriage, people predict that he will not necessarily leave his wife for his lover, but people see women’s extra- marital sex as more indicative of the end of the relationship. Thus, the gender difference in the acceptability of casual sex affects dating and extramarital sex and people’s beliefs about what sexual affairs imply for relationships.

The other large gender difference in sexuality is the frequency of masturbation (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010); men report that they masturbate more often than women say they do. At fi rst, any relationship between masturbation and partnered sex may not seem apparent, but Janet Hyde (1996) explained a connection through women’s guilt concerning masturbation, which results in less familiarity with their bodies and less certain knowledge of how to reach orgasm. Women’s lower likelihood of experiencing orgasm dur- ing intercourse causes distress for many couples. Hyde pointed out that many sex therapists direct women who are having orgasmic diffi culties to masturbate and hypothesized that women’s lower frequency of masturbation may lay the foundation for women to have dif- fi culties in reaching orgasm.

Other gender differences may also have some relationship to the problems that hetero- sexual couples face. One issue is desire for and frequency of sexual activity. The double stan- dard proposes that women will be less interested in sex because they are less sexual creatures than men. Evolutionary psychology also holds that women are less sexual than men because women must be selective in choosing mates who will be able to provide for offspring (Buss, 1994, 1996). Determining a social or biological explanation is very diffi cult because society infl uences everyone, including sexuality, making any interpretation of “natural” sexuality is impossible.

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (1981, 1986, 1999) criticized the view that women are less sexual than men, which she called the Myth of the Coy Female, by reporting on females unaffected by cultural expectations and the double standard—nonhuman primates. She argued that male scientists have seen female reluctance to engage in sex and have projected the human double standard onto nonhuman primates, revealing more about the human observer than about the observed species. Hrdy contended that the sexual behavior of nonhuman animals varies

Sexuality 303

from species to species. The females of some species, such as baboons and chimpanzees, initiate multiple, brief sexual relationships, whereas the females of other species, such as blue monkeys and redtail monkeys, are very selective about their mating partners. Thus there is no universal pattern for primate sexuality.

Is sexuality really very different for women and men? Gender differences in sexual behavior are converging, which suggests that both female and male sexuality are subject to change and are infl uenced by social standards. During the Victorian era, women were presumed to be less sexual than men, and so they became less sexual. In our sexualized modern culture, women are portrayed as being more sexual than in the past but still less so than men, and so they have become as portrayed. Sexuality is created by each culture and shows enormous differences across cultures. Thus, women and men exhibit a wide variety of sexual behaviors depending on their physiologies, cultures, personal backgrounds, and personal expectations. Carol Tavris (1992, p. 245) summarized heterosexuality by saying, “The question is not whether women are more or less sexual than men. (The answer to that is yes, no, both, and sometimes.) The questions are: What are the conditions that allow women and men to enjoy sex in safety, with self-confi dence, and in a spirit of delight? And how do we get there?”

Homosexuality

Some people develop erotic attraction toward people of the same sex and engage in same-sex sexual activities. The number of people with same-sex sexual interests, behavior patterns, and identities constitutes a minority, but estimates vary on how small a minority (Savin- Williams, 2009). Most of the variation in estimates can be explained according to the varia- tion in defi nitions. Is sexual attraction to those of the same sex a suffi cient indicator? Are persons lesbian or gay if they have engaged in sexual activity with persons of the same sex at any time during their lives? Does having sex primarily or exclusively with members of one’s own sex defi ne homosexuality? Or must people identify themselves as gay or lesbian? These varying criteria produce different estimates.

Kinsey et al. (1948) found that 37% of the men in their survey said that they had engaged in male–male sexual activity at some time during their lives, and 28% of women reported at least one female–female sexual experience (Kinsey et al., 1953). Therefore, a substantial number of participants in the Kinsey surveys reported sexual experiences with members of their own sex, but most did not engage in such relationships as the primary form of sexual- ity throughout their lives. About 13% of the men and about 7% of the women in Kinsey’s surveys identifi ed themselves as primarily gay or lesbian. This estimate has been controver- sial (Bancroft, 2004), and other surveys have asked different questions and obtained lower estimates. Table 10.6 presents a comparison of the various measures of homosexuality for several studies, one of which questioned people in three countries. As this table reveals, the different measures (and cultures) show variations in the percentage of people who might be classifi ed as gay or lesbian.

Understanding homosexual sexual orientation has been a challenge for theorists and researchers. For years, psychologists failed to make a distinction between gender role , the social behaviors associated with one or the other gender, and sexual orientation , the erotic attraction to members of one or the other sex (or to both). Separating masculinity or femininity and sexual orientation allowed psychologists to clarify the relationships among these concepts (Constantinople, 1973; Lewin, 1984a, 1984b). Same-sex sexual orienta- tion has a far from perfect relationship to masculinity or femininity. That is, men who are erotically attracted to other men are not necessarily feminine in appearance or behavior, nor are women who fi nd other women sexually attractive necessarily more masculine than other women.

Table 10.6 Differing Estimates of Same-Sex Attraction and Behavior

Study Percent

Kinsey et al. (1948, 1953) Men Women

At least one same-sex sexual experience 37% 28%

Primarily or exclusively same-sex sexual contacts 13 7

Janus and Janus (1993)

At least one same-sex sexual experience 22 17

Primarily same-sex sex 4 2

Laumann et al. (1994, NHSLS)

Same-sex desires or experiences 10.1 8.6

Done anything sexual with same-sex partner 9.1 4.3

Same-sex partner since puberty 7.1 3.8

Same-sex partner in past year 2.7 1.3

Attracted to same-sex individuals 7.7 7.5

Self-identifi ed as gay or lesbian 2.8 1.4

Sell, Wells, and Wypij (1995)

United States

Same-sex attraction but no activity 8.7 11.1

Same-sex sexual activity since age 15 6.2 3.6

United Kingdom

Same-sex attraction but no activity 7.9 8.6

Same-sex sexual activity since age 15 4.5 2.1

France

Same-sex attraction but no activity 8.5 11.7

Same-sex sexual activity since age 15 10.7 3.3

Butler (2005)

Same-sex sexual activity in past year 2.9 3.5

Turner, Villarroel, Chromy, Eggleston, and Rogers (2005)

Same-sex sexual activity since age 18 5.7 5.4

Same-sex sexual activity in past 5 years 3.6 3.8

Same-sex sexual activity in past year 3.2 2.5

Herbenick et al. (2010)

Performed same-sex oral sex in past year 4.3–8.0 0.9–9.2

Received same-sex oral sex in past year 0.5–8.4 0.6–8.5

Receptive anal intercourse in past year 1.0–6.0 —

YouGov (2015)

Self-rated as not completely heterosexual 29 20

Self-rated as completely homosexual 8 1

Ever had a same-sex sexual experience 20 14

Sexuality 305

The issue of sexual orientation is socially controversial and poorly understood scientifi cally (Jenkins, 2010), possibly because of the focus on homosexuality rather than the broader concept of sexual orientation. Lisa Diamond (2003b) questioned the meaning of sexual orientation and proposed that erotic attraction and romantic attraction were separable com- ponents that usually—but not always—go together. Her questions about the underlying meaning of sexual orientation have been exceptions; most researchers have accepted the assumption that heterosexuality is the standard and thus needs no explanation, whereas homosexuality requires theory and research. This attitude of compulsory heterosexuality (Hyde & Jaffee, 2000) refl ects the lack of acceptance for homosexuality, which occurs in many—but not all—societies. This lack of acceptance is a prominent feature of the social controversy, which also questions the underlying basis for sexual attraction to those of the same sex. Is sexual attraction biologically determined (and if so, how)? Or is sexual attraction the result of experiences (and if so, which ones)? The social controversy continues because research has not yielded clear answers concerning the basis for sexual orientation (Jenkins, 2010). However, theory and research are plentiful, centering on biologically based versus socially based theories.

Early biological theories of sexual orientation focused on genetics and hormones. No simple relationship exists between sexual orientation and either genetic background or hor- monal levels, but both may exert infl uences in complex ways (Hyde, 2005). The evidence is strong that sexual orientation has a genetic component (Veale, Clarke, & Lomax, 2010). One large, representative study of twins (Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000) found that when one of a pair of identical twins was gay, lesbian, or bisexual, about 20% of the other twins also were not heterosexual. Other studies have found a higher degree of concordance, but these studies were based on less representative samples. Any concordance less than 100% suggests that factors other than genes also contribute to sexual orientation.

Another biologically based hypothesis centers around prenatal exposure to testosterone and how such exposure might infl uence the developing brain and thus affect sexual orienta- tion (Bogaert & Skorska, 2011; Cohen, 2002; Rahman, 2005a, 2005b). The reasoning is that too much or too little exposure to androgens produces brain variations that underlie the development of nonheterosexual sexual orientation. Thus, studies have examined physical correlates of atypical prenatal androgen exposure and related these physical differences to sexual orientation, focusing on the ratio of the length of the second (index) and fourth (ring) fi ngers. Prenatal testosterone exposure affects this ratio, so fi nger ratio may differ for gays and lesbians compared to heterosexuals. Some studies have shown the predicted differences for lesbians (Hall & Love, 2003; Rahman, 2005a) and gay men (Rahman, 2005a; Robinson & Manning, 2000), but other studies have failed to fi nd the expected differences or have found the opposite (Kangassalo, Pölkki, & Rantala, 2011). Another approach has focused on the number of male siblings, and results have indicated that older brothers increase the likeli- hood of being gay (Bogaert & Skorska, 2011), which is likely mediated through a maternal immune response. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that prenatal exposure to androgens plays a role in the development of sexual orientation.

Other theories put more emphasis on experience, such as Daryl Bem’s (1996, 2000) theory, the Exotic-Becomes-Erotic. According to this view, individuals become erotically attracted to the class of people from whom they felt different during childhood. For most people, gender segregation makes the other gender that class of people; through separation from the other gender, those in that class seem different and exotic. When adolescents begin to experience sexual feelings, the objects of those feelings are those who were exotic. Thus, Bem contended that the perception of differences leads to the development of sexual interest and orientation.

306 Sexuality

For individuals who develop a same-sex sexual orientation, the Exotic-Becomes-Erotic view hypothesizes that they had childhood activity preferences that were more typical of the other gender. Thus, boys who preferred playing with dolls and kitchen sets tend to associ- ate with girls, making girls more familiar and less exotic. For girls who preferred boys’ toys and games, girls would be more exotic. Therefore, this theory predicts that gay men and lesbians will have childhoods in which gender-atypical activities predominated. Many stud- ies confi rm this prediction for boys (Bailey et al., 2000; Bem, 2000), but the evidence for girls is much weaker (Peplau & Huppin, 2008). Both Bem (2000) and Phillip Hammack (2005) have argued for an interactional view that includes biological, social, and experiential components in a theory of sexual orientation. Integrated theories will remain diffi cult to formulate, partly because researchers remain polarized and cannot agree on what constitutes homosexuality (Savin-Williams, 2006; 2009).

During Adolescence

Adolescence is a time of sexual exploration, and adolescent sexual activity has become more common and more accepted over the past 40 years—for heterosexual individuals. Despite being discouraged, same-sex sexual activity still occurs. Indeed, most of the people who have same-sex sexual experiences do so as part of adolescent experimentation and not as the beginning of a gay or lesbian sexual identity. Some adolescents who are attracted to persons of the same sex do not act on these desires during adolescence (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000). Therefore, sexual orientation and sexual activity during adolescence do not corre- spond completely to sexual identity or to sexual activity during adulthood.

The process of developing a gay or lesbian sexual identity must include the recognition of sexual attraction: labeling self as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual; engaging in sex; and acknowledging sexual orientation (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000). These milestones do not necessarily occur in that order, and women and men show gender-related as well as individual variations in their trajectories of developing sexual identity. However, the recog- nition of sexual attraction tends to be the fi rst milestone, which often occurs between ages 8 and 10 years.

Some gays and lesbians say they questioned if they were heterosexual or knew about their same-sex sexual attraction well before adolescence, but many tried to develop heterosexual interests and fi t into this accepted pattern of sexuality (Carver, Egan, & Perry, 2004). Some may succeed; as many as 90% of lesbians have entered sexual relationships with men (Rust, 2000). Also, sexual orientation in women appears to be less fi xed than in men (Diamond, 2006); over 25% of young women who had identifi ed themselves as lesbian changed that identity within a 5-year period (Diamond, 2003a). Furthermore, the milestone of identifying oneself as gay or lesbian varied for gay men and for lesbians (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000). Women tended to self-identify before they engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, but most gay men had a sexual experience with another man before they identifi ed themselves as gay. The percentage of women who report sexual activity with other women has increased over the past 20 years, and this change is most obvious for younger women; 9.2% of 20–24 year olds reported giving oral sex to another woman within the past year (Herbenick et al., 2010). These changes in women’s sexual behavior are compatible with the view that women’s sexuality is fl exible for a longer period in their lives than men’s sexual orientation, which seems to be fi xed earlier in development (Baumeister, 2000).

The acceptance of same-sex attraction is a milestone that presents a major challenge for gay adolescents. They often struggle with feelings that something is wrong with them, and self-esteem may be a problem. Self-acceptance is different (and often comes more easily) than revealing one’s same-sex sexual orientation or behavior to family and friends. Coming out

Sexuality 307

is the process of personally recognizing and publicly acknowledging one’s gay or lesbian orientation to others (Bohan, 1996). The term originated with the phrase “coming out of the closet,” referring to the hidden (closeted) nature of sexuality for many gays and lesbians. Thus, coming out is a positive affi rmation of sexuality but may nevertheless present problems at school and within families (Rasmussen, 2004; Russell, Everett, Rosario, & Birkett, 2014). This process may be part of adolescent development, or it may occur at any time during adulthood. One study (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000) indicated that the time between experiencing same-sex attraction and acknowledging gay or lesbian sexual orientation was about 10 years.

Gendered Voices: In my School

In schools, boys and girls are the targets of name-calling and gender harassment based on sexual orientation. The basis of the name-calling is rarely related to sexual behavior.

“If you use good grammar and good English, the kids in my school call you a faggot. It’s crazy.” 15-year-old African American boy attending a suburban school

“If you belong to the drama club in my school, everybody thinks you are gay.” 15-year- old White boy (in the drama club)

“If you belong to the science fi ction club, everybody thinks you are gay because those kids dress all in black and hug each other before they go to class.” 14-year-old White girl attending a suburban school in a large city

“You don’t have to do anything to be called a faggot in my school. The athletes call every- body faggot, just because they are jerks who are trying to intimidate other kids.” 14-year-old White boy attending a private school

Coming out includes developing a sexual self-concept, and many adolescents consult the Internet for information during this phase (Bond, Hefner, & Drogos, 2009). A pub- lic acknowledgment of sexual orientation may occur, or the revelation may be limited to friends and family. Parents may be accepting and supportive, or they may be angry and have trouble accommodating the sexual orientation of this child; they may feel that they are being asked to accept the unacceptable (Freedman, 2008). In addition, friends may react negatively to coming out. Verbal or physical attacks and discrimination are not unusual in school (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Russell et al., 2014) and in many other contexts (Fedewa & Ahn, 2011). Thus, gay and lesbian adolescents may be estranged from family and peers, and the bullying they experience put them at increased risk for home- and school-related problems.

For adults, coming out often includes acceptance into the gay community. For adoles- cents, such acceptance is not as easy, because activities in the gay community are oriented toward adults. Charges of seducing adolescents or of promoting same-sex sexual activities present situations that make gay adults sensitive about including adolescents in the gay community.

Coming out can be a positive statement of sexuality for adolescents as well as for adults, but adolescents face many challenges in establishing a gay or lesbian identity. A longitudinal study of gay and lesbian gender identity (Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006) indicated adolescents who form such an identity tend to be more comfortable and accepting of their sexual identity than those who have not yet taken that step.

308 Sexuality

During Adulthood

Women and men who engage in same-sex sexual activities face disapproval and censure. Sexual activities between people of the same sex have been illegal in many states of the United States, and the controversy over same-sex marriages refl ects the lack of acceptance for these relationships (Turner et al., 2005). Men in the United States hold more negative attitudes than women do toward homosexuality, especially regarding gay men, and students in Ger- many (Steffens & Wagner, 2004) and Italy (Lingiardi, Falanga, & D’Augelli, 2005) showed similar gender differences in their attitudes. Both men and women with strong gender role identities tend to be more prejudiced against gays and lesbians than other people (Whitley, 2001). Although attitudes toward gays and lesbians have become less negative over the past several years (Sarantakis, 2010), explicit attitudes remain more positive than implicit atti- tudes (Breen & Karpinski, 2013).

Photo 10.2 Coming out and becoming part of the gay and lesbian community are events that are important to many lesbians and gay men.

Gendered Voices: Treated Like a Gender Traitor

“When I came out as gay, I got a lot of homophobia reactions,” a college student in his 20s said. “Men were especially bad. Their reactions weren’t exactly fear, although they were nervous. And it wasn’t hatred. It was more like resentment. I wasn’t a real man anymore and like I was some kind of traitor to the male gender.”

Sexuality 309

This lack of acceptance means that gays and lesbians face disapproval and discrimination (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012; Sandfort, de Graaf, & Bijl, 2003), which has led to the forma- tion of self-contained gay communities. In many large cities, such communities form the context for the lives of many gay people, who may rarely interact with the outside world of heterosexuals. Friendships and social networks become an essential part of gays’ and lesbi- ans’ social lives. As they age, friendships can provide a support network that acts as a buffer between them and an outside world that stigmatizes their sexual orientation (de Vries & Megathlin, 2009).

Gendered Voices: I Never Imagined the Pain

“Lesbians have been telling me about their problems in coming out,” a female graduate student in counseling said. “For some reason, two women have confi ded in me about the problems with staying in the closet and coming out. They are women I knew and they came to trust me, but I’m not their counselor. I never imagined the pain and the problems. I guess I have led a sheltered life. I have known gays and lesbians, but I had never known or imagined the diffi culties in essentially leading two lives—one for the public and the real, private one.

“One woman has been in a relationship for 17 years. During those years she and her lover have had to pretend to be ‘just roommates’ who share a house. She felt that she could never let the people at work know she was lesbian; she thought she would lose her job.

“She said that she felt pressured and tried to be heterosexual. She was even engaged to be married when she was in her early 20s, but her mother sensed something was wrong and told her that she didn’t have to get married if she didn’t want to. She broke the engage- ment and stopped trying to be something she wasn’t, but she kept her sexual orientation secret for another 20 years.

“This woman has started to come out selectively to people she trusts. Her family still doesn’t know—or at least she hasn’t told them. She has found coming out a great relief and would like to be able to be completely out but does not feel comfortable enough to do so.

“The other woman has not yet come out. I guess you would say she is bisexual rather than lesbian; I’m not sure about these classifi cations. She is married and has a child, but she is attracted to women and has had a number of lesbian affairs, but they upset her. She says that she was ‘good’ when she went on a shopping trip to a large city and did not pur- sue a lesbian relationship, but ‘bad’ when she did. She is very unhappy and troubled over whether she should leave her husband and come out as a lesbian. I am really very concerned for her, because she is suicidal, and I am afraid that she might harm herself. This confl ict is really a problem for her.

“In listening to these women, I was struck by their pain in essentially living a charade, pretending to be something they know they are not. That must be so diffi cult and so stress- ful. Coming out has been like removing a huge burden for the woman who has, but I see the problems in that choice, too. Talking to these two women has really been an education for me.”

Lesbians and gay men form love relationships that have the elements of intimacy, passion, and commitment in them, just as in heterosexual couples’ relationships. Surveys of gay male and lesbian couples contrasting them with heterosexual couples revealed similarities as well as differences among the various confi gurations of couples (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983;

310 Sexuality

Holmberg & Blair, 2009; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2005). The surveys included questions about sexual activities and satisfaction with these activities.

Lesbian couples reported a lower level of sexual activity than any other type of couple and had some reluctance to perform cunnilingus. Lesbians’ socialization as women may have infl uenced their sexuality, making both partners hesitant about initiating sex (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Solomon et al., 2005). The result was a lower frequency of sexual activity than in couples that included a man, who would be socialized to initiate sex. Lesbians who had frequent oral sex were happier with their sex lives and with their relationships than those who had less oral sex (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). Nevertheless, only 39% of the lesbian couples reported having oral sex very frequently, and mutual masturbation was the most common sexual activity among these couples. Lesbians also valued nongenital physical contact, such as hugging and cuddling, activities that promoted intimacy but not orgasm. Sex surveys do not count such activities as “having sex,” which may refl ect a heterosexual bias (Frye, 1997). Indeed, lesbians rated a variety of activities involving genitals as having sex (Horowitz & Spicer, 2013).

Sex is a very important part of life for gay men, and their relationships typically include a lot of sexual activity (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). Fellatio is an important activity for gay men, but their sex lives are varied, and mutual masturbation is also a common activity. Anal intercourse was never as common an activity as either oral sex or manual stimulation, and its dangers for spreading HIV infection have made it less common than before the appear- ance of HIV. Gay men’s frequency of sexual contact is higher than for any other confi gura- tion of couples during the early years of their relationships. The frequency of activity with their partners falls sharply after approximately the fi rst 2 years of the relationship, but this decrease in frequency may only be a decrease in sex with their long-time partners and not in total sexual activity.

Gay men are more acceptant of casual sex than lesbians are, and even gay men who are involved in long-term relationships are more likely than men in heterosexual relationships to have sex with men other than their partners (Solomon et al., 2005). Indeed, gay men often negotiate permission to have sex with men other than their partners (Shernoff, 2006). Although all types of couples are subject to sexual jealousy (Sheets & Wolfe, 2001) and affairs can present a problem for any couple, sex outside the relationship is not as likely to be a factor in the dissolution of gay men’s relationships as it is for other couples.

However, long-term relationships are less common among gay and lesbian couples than among heterosexual couples, which leaves these individuals more likely to be without part- ners as they age (Brennan-Ing, Karpiak, & Seidel, 2011). This situation creates social as well as sexual problems for people who are gay or lesbian. For example, gays and lesbians are more likely to live alone, resulting in feelings of isolation and even depression. In terms of sexuality, older lesbian and gay individuals reported attitudes and behaviors that were similar to older heterosexual individuals (Waite et al., 2009). Those similarities included attitudes that sex is important and reports that sexual activities continue to be pleasurable but also a decrease in sexual activity during the years after age 60, diffi culties in fi nding sexual partners, and health conditions that posed diffi culties for sexual performance (Brennan-Ing et al., 2011). The prevalence of HIV infection among gay men was also a factor in the sexual behavior of older gay men, but older HIV-positive men reported a higher estimate of the importance of sex and higher rates of sexual activity than comparable HIV-negative men.

In Blumstein and Schwartz’s (1983) survey, many similarities appeared among all con- fi gurations of couples. For example, couples that had sex less than once a week were not as happy as couples who had sex more often. Sex formed a physical bond for all the types of couples and helped them maintain their relationships, but sex can also be source of problems (Solomon et al., 2005). Those couples who fought about sex were less stable than those who

Sexuality 311

were happy with their sexual relationships (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). For all of the couples, their sexual relationships refl ected the problems that happened in other aspects of their relationships. Sex went well when the relationships went well, and unhappiness with the sexual activity in the relationships tended to be associated with unhappiness in the quality of affection in the relationships.

Bisexuality

In Kinsey’s survey of sexual behavior (Kinsey et al., 1948), a relatively high percentage of men and women reported some same-sex experiences but did not have an exclusive same-sex sexual orientation. This situation suggested to Kinsey that sexuality should not be considered in terms of independent categories. He created a continuum for classifying people’s sexual experience and attraction to members of their own and the other gender. This 7-point scale ranged from strongly heterosexual to strongly homosexual, with gradations in between rep- resenting people who have both types of sexual relationships in varying proportions. These gradations refl ected people who are attracted to individuals of both genders, referred to as bisexual .

The status and even the existence of bisexuality remain controversial (Guittar, 2013; Rieger, Chivers, & Bailey, 2005). It carries a stigma: Those who fi nd same-sex sexuality unaccept- able will object to bisexuality. For gays and lesbians, bisexuality is seen as an unwillingness to acknowledge a gay or lesbian identity by clinging to heterosexuality (Guittar, 2013; McLean, 2008). Thus people who are bisexual have diffi culty fi nding an accepting social group.

Research has also led to questions about bisexuality. A study that measured sexual arousal (Rieger et al., 2005) found that men who identifi ed themselves as bisexual were not equally aroused by men and women; some were more aroused by men and others by women. A later study’s (Rosenthal, Sylva, Safron, & Bailey, 2011) results differed: This study found a pattern of bisexual arousal among men with a history of relationships with both men and women.

Although one view of bisexuality proposes that this sexual orientation represents confl ict, another view focuses on its fl exibility (Diamond, 2008b; Zinik, 1985). Both views may be correct. For some individuals, bisexuality represents a developmental step on the way to forming a gay or lesbian sexual orientation. In two longitudinal studies of nonhetero- sexual adolescents (Rosario et al., 2006; Savin-Williams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012), 18–25% changed their sexual orientation from bisexual. Some individuals changed to gay or lesbian, but change to heterosexual sexual orientation was common. These statistics are consistent with the view that some individuals experience confl ict over their sexuality and spend time questioning. For these individuals, bisexuality is a way to postpone accepting a gay or lesbian sexual identity.

For others, bisexuality is a successful integration of same- and other-gender sexuality and represents fl exibility. However, not all people who identify as bisexual are equally attracted to both sexes (Diamond, 2008a, b; Rieger et al., 2005). Indeed, a pattern of sexual orientation described as “mostly heterosexual” (Savin-Williams & Vrangalova, 2013) combines same-sex interest that begins during adolescence, continues into young adulthood, and becomes more heterosexual during maturity. Lisa Diamond (2008b) described another conceptualization of sexual orientation fl exibility, which she calls sexual fl uidit y. Diamond (2008b) studied sexual fl uidity in a group of 100 women who had experienced attraction to women over a 10-year span and found several patterns. Some women became more heterosexual, some became more attracted to women, others continued to be attracted to both women and men, and still others were attracted to a person rather than a gender. Fitting into a pattern of a fl ex- ible erotic attraction may not be the same as bisexuality, but individuals who exhibit gender fl uidity fi t some of the characteristics of bisexuality.

312 Sexuality

The frequency of bisexuality is diffi cult to assess. The prejudice in favor of heterosexu- ality pushes many adolescents toward heterosexual experiences, regardless of their sexual attraction. Considering lifetime sexual experiences, most gay men and lesbians have had heterosexual experiences at some time during their lives, which would technically place them in the category of bisexual. Heterosexual activity may represent a type of adolescent sexual exploration among gay and lesbian adolescents rather than a sexual identity (Herdt & Boxer, 1995). Some individuals whose primary sexual orientation is heterosexual have had same-sex sexual experiences, and a behavioral criterion would count this group of individu- als as bisexual. However, sexual orientation may not be as fi xed as most people imagine and categorizing people as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual may not the a good way to understand sexuality.

Those who identify themselves as bisexual and who accept the possibility of romantic and sexual relationships with both women and men are much less common than those who iden- tify themselves as gay or lesbian. According to the NHSLS results (Laumann et al., 1994), 0.8% of men and 0.5% of women identifi ed themselves as bisexual, however a larger percent- age of people engage in sexual relationships with people of the same sex (Diamond, 2008b).

Studies of attitudes toward bisexuals (Herek, 2002; Steffens & Wagner, 2004) indicated that this sexual orientation is less well accepted than any other. In addition, the number of individuals who claim a bisexual sexual orientation is so small that no community exists to offer support, and most bisexuals are not integrated into the existing gay and lesbian com- munities, leaving many isolated (Balsam & Mohr, 2007; Diamond, 2008b). This situation is beginning to change, and many gay and lesbian community centers and agencies include services oriented to bisexuals. Despite this increased acceptance, bisexuality remains the least researched, least understood, and least accepted sexual orientation.

Considering Diversity

Cultures around the world have chosen a variety of sexual activities for acceptance as “nor- mal” and have designated other choices as abnormal, sinful, or repulsive. Cultures shape sexuality by “choosing some sexual acts (by praise, encouragement, or reward) and rejecting others (by scorn, ridicule, or condemnation), as if selecting from a sexual buffet” (Vance, 1984, p. 8). This selection from the array of available choices has resulted in virtually no universally accepted and no universally rejected set of sexual behaviors. What some cultures have found disgusting, others have found essential.

The behaviors that some cultures have considered essential include forced fellatio per- formed on adult men by adolescent boys, which would be the basis for criminal prosecution in many cultures. However, the Sambia in New Guinea fi nd this practice not only acceptable but also required (Herdt, 1981). According to their beliefs, femininity is natural to girls but masculinity is not natural to boys. To attain masculinity, a preadolescent boy must leave his mother and live with men. Part of the process involves swallowing semen, and the Sambia encourage boys to engage in fellatio with unmarried adolescent and adult men. The men must restrict their same-sex sexual activities to these boys, and fellatio with men their own age is strictly forbidden. When these adolescents and young men marry, they are supposed to make the transition to heterosexuality and to end all same-sex sexual activities.

A related practice occurs among the Keraki, another society in New Guinea, and for similar reasons (Kimmel, 2006). The Keraki believe that boys must receive semen to mature into men, and mature men have anal sex with boys to achieve this goal. This activ- ity stops when the boys begin to develop secondary sexual characteristics such as facial hair and deepening voices. These signs mean that the process has been successful and need continue no longer.

Sexuality 313

The acceptance of these practices is diffi cult for people in North America and Europe to accept (Kimmel, 2006). People in Western cultures object both to same-sex behavior and to sexual activity of adults with children. Students, when told of such behaviors, tend to say that they would not participate in such ritualized “homosexual” behavior, which reveals a lack of understanding of the power of culture and a tendency to interpret sexual behaviors in one’s own cultural frame of reference. Searching the world and history more broadly, both behaviors have been choices for various cultures from the sexual buffet.

Another disputed choice is same-sex sexuality, but anthropologists have identifi ed doz- ens of cultures that have included some sanctioned forms of same-sex sexuality (Kirkpat- rick, 2000). Non-Western societies accept such behavior more than in Europe and North America, but many examples may be found among these cultures. Indeed, behaviors that accompany hazing in many fraternity initiations may be interpreted as rituals that include homosexual behaviors (Kimmel, 2006). The participants, however, deny that these hazings indicate that they are homosexual, similar to the denials of the Sambia and Keraki.

Same-sex behaviors are not limited to humans. Many species of nonhuman primates and other animals engage in some same-sex sexual behaviors (Kirkpatrick, 2000; Zuk, 2002). For example, both female and male bonobo chimpanzees engage in same-sex stimulation to orgasm. Olive baboons engage in male–male sexual stimulation. These behaviors seem to act as ways to form alliances or to soothe disagreements. However, these nonhuman primates also engage in other-sex sexual behavior, which makes their behavior similar to most of the humans who have participated in same-sex behaviors.

Children in some societies are allowed and even expected to experiment with sex, whereas other societies restrict sexuality during childhood (Blackwood, 2000; Ford & Beach, 1951). For the societies that allow children to express their sexuality, genital touching and simulated intercourse are more likely to be allowed between peers than between a child and someone older. The Sambia and the Keraki, with their institutionalized adult–preadolescent sexuality, are exceptions, and so are the Lepcha of India, who believe that girls will not mature unless they engage in early intercourse. However, millions of children are subjected to unwanted sexual activity each year in countries throughout the world, including as many as 10 million who are victims of sex traffi cking and forced into prostitution (United Nations Offi ce on Drugs and Crime, 2014). In some cultures, this behavior is acceptable, but in many more it is not. However, attitudes and behavior are not the same thing, and people may condemn and yet practice a sexual behavior. Therefore, disapproval and even social sanction against any specifi c sexual behavior do not mean that people do not engage in that behavior.

Summary

Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behavior have been the object of speculation and research. Most sex research has used the survey technique—questioning people about their sexual attitudes or behavior. Problems with this method include the possibility of inaccuracy with self-reports and the problem of obtaining a representative sample that allows generaliza- tion to the population. Kinsey and his colleagues conducted the most famous sex surveys, which showed the prevalence of many sexual activities that differed from social norms. The results shocked many people. Although some of Kinsey’s results are controversial, the importance of his work is not. He made the study of sexuality a legitimate part of scientifi c research.

Later sex surveys, which include the Playboy Foundation survey (Hunt, 1974), the National Health and Social Life Survey (Laumann et al., 1994), and the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (Herbenick et al., 2010), attempted to obtain a represen- tative sample of U.S. residents and to extend Kinsey’s fi ndings. These surveys indicated

314 Sexuality

some changes—especially a decrease in the double standard of sexual behavior for men and women. All of the surveys have shown that people engage in a wide variety of sexual behavior.

Masters and Johnson took another approach, measuring sexual responses directly during masturbation and intercourse in an attempt to understand the physiology of sexual response. Their 1966 book detailed four stages of the sexual response—excitation, plateau, orgasm, and resolution.

Childhood sexuality includes both exploration and the potential for abuse. Exploration begins very early in childhood, and parents may fi nd these explorations distressing. Con- demning these behaviors may convey the impression that sexual feelings and activities are unacceptable. Exploitation may also begin early in childhood. Sex surveys have revealed that at least 15% of women and 5% of men were sexually abused as children. The large majority of the perpetrators of sexual abuse of children are men, often family members or those in positions of authority, but girls and women are also perpetrators of abuse. Abuse has both short-term and long-term negative effects for male and female victims.

Adolescence is a time of increasing sexual interest and exploration. Sex education tends to emphasize the dangers rather than the pleasures of sexuality, leaving boys with information about the damage that their male sexuality can do and leaving girls with a sense of vulner- ability. The average age of fi rst intercourse had previously been higher for girls, but now that difference has disappeared. Gender differences in premarital sexual activity have decreased over the past 50 years.

Marriage is no longer the only acceptable context for sexual activity; a large majority of unmarried young men and young women now have intercourse before age 25. Celibacy may be a choice or a lack of opportunity, but monogamy remains the ideal sexual relationship for many people, but the reality for few. Choosing sexual free expression with many partners is still not a common choice, but more men than women have multiple sexual partners at the same time. This difference may relate to men’s greater acceptance of casual sex, which is one of the largest gender differences in sexuality. Another large difference is frequency of masturbation, which may lead to women being less likely to experience orgasm during partnered sex.

Another difference that infl uences sexuality is the existence of a double standard for sexual behavior, which holds that girls and women are less sexual than boys and men. Acceptance of the double standard has declined, but its continuation is a factor infl uencing the sexuality of women and men and contributes to confl icts in couples.

Same-sex sexual activity is not uncommon among children and adolescents, but a minor- ity of people experience erotic attraction to only members of the same sex. Estimates vary according to the defi nition, but a small percentage of men and an even smaller percentage of women have primarily or exclusively gay or lesbian sexual orientation. The underlying reasons for this sexual orientation are not understood, but recent research has concentrated on biological factors such as genetics or prenatal exposure to testosterone. These biologi- cal factors may interact with personality traits and preferences to produce heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

Lesbian and gay sexuality is not well accepted, and adolescents who are attracted to mem- bers of their own sex may have trouble accepting themselves and their sexual orientation as well as struggling with coming out—revealing gay or lesbian interests and behavior to friends and family. The sexuality of gay men and lesbian women shows both similarities with and differences from heterosexual couples and from each other. For all types of heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples, sex provides both a bond of pleasure and a potential for confl ict in their relationships.

When individuals form romantic and sexual relationships with both men and women, they are bisexual. This sexual orientation is controversial and diffi cult to defi ne because

Sexuality 315

many individuals experiment with sexuality by having both male and female partners. Few, however, have a true bisexual sexual orientation, so this sexual orientation remains the least researched and most poorly understood of the sexual orientations.

Around the world, some cultures condemn the sexual behaviors that other cultures require, producing a wide variety of sexuality throughout the world. For example, behaviors such as adults having sex with children and same-sex sexuality are condemned in many societies, yet others sanction these behaviors.

Glossary

bisexual a person who is sexually attracted to individuals of the same as well as the other gender.

celibacy refraining from sexual activity. coming out the process of recognizing and publicly acknowledging one’s gay or lesbian

sexual orientation. cunnilingus oral stimulation of the female genitals. date rape, or acquaintance rape forced sexual activity occurring between people who are

acquainted with each other. double standard for sexual behavior the social standard that allows men greater freedom

of sexual expression than women. fellatio oral stimulation of the male genitals. gay an alternative for the term homosexual , emphasizing the entire lifestyle instead of only

the sexual aspects of it; sometimes used to refer to both men and women, but more often to men, who feel sexual attraction for and choose sexual activity with people of the same gender.

incest sexual activity between family members. lesbian a woman who feels sexual attraction for and chooses sexual activity with other

women. masturbation manipulation of the genitals to produce sexual pleasure. monogamy having only one sexual partner. representative sample a sample (subset) of the population that refl ects the characteristics of

the population from which the sample was drawn. self-selection of participants when participants rather than researchers choose who will

take part in the research. This problem biases the results and prevents generalization to a wider population.

serial monogamy the practice of having a series of monogamous sexual relationships. sexual orientation the erotic attraction to members of the same or the other gender (or to

both).

Suggested Readings

Diamond, Lisa M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110 , 173–192. Diamond asks a provocative question concerning the meaning of sexual orientation and offers an answer that

shakes the underlying assumptions of love and sex.

Jenkins, William J. (2010). Can anyone tell me why I’m gay? What research suggests regarding the origins of sexual orientation. North American Journal of Psychology, 12 (2), 279–295. Jenkins reviews the research concerning the basis for nonheterosexual sexual orientation, considering the

variety of infl uences that have been considered over the years.

Regnerus, Mark; & Uecker, Jeremy. (2011). Premarital sex in America: How young Americans meet, mate & think about marrying . New York: Oxford University Press.

316 Sexuality

Sociologists Regnerus and Uecker explored the sexuality of young women and men through extensive inter- views. They found a number of ways in which these emerging adults’ sexual attitudes and behavior differ from adolescents and from adults.

Tolman, Deborah L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tolman’s extensive interviews with adolescent girls present the diffi culties of developing a healthy sexuality

within the current cultural context. Although the book focuses on girls, boys receive some attention.

Suggested Websites

Sex is certainly a common topic on the Internet, and good advice is possible to fi nd. Love is Respect (http://www. loveisrespect.org/healthy-relationships/sex-and-healthy-relationships/) provides a variety of materials to assist in developing skills to make good decisions about sex. It’s Your Call (https://thenationalcampaign.org/sites/default/ fi les/resource-primary-download/It’sYourCall.pdf ) is a program designed to help people to clarify their sexual values and to make good decisions.

Advocates for Youth (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/) is another organization devoted to helping young people make good choices about their sexuality. Their website contains information about their approach and materials to help young people develop healthy sexuality, including orientations that are not heterosexual (http:// www.advocatesforyouth.org/lgbtq-issues-home).

The Romance/Sexuality Tests at Queendom.com (http://www.queendom.com/tests/testscontrol. htm?s=16&t=1#h) provide a more light-hearted look at sexual decision making.

References

Adams, Mary B.; McGuire, Jenifer K.; Walsh, Michele; Basta, Joanne; & LeCroy, Craig. (2005). Acculturation as a predictor of the onset of sexual intercourse among Hispanic and White teens. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 159 , 261–265.

Alexander, Michele G.; & Fisher, Terri D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40 , 27–35.

Bagley, Christopher; & King, Kathleen. (1990). Child sexual abuse: The search for healing . London: Tavistock/ Routledge.

Bailey, J. Michael; Dunne, Michael P.; & Martin, Nicholas G. (2000). Genetic and environmental infl uences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 524–536.

Baldwin, John D.; & Baldwin, Janice I. (1997). Gender differences in sexual interest. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26 , 181–210.

Balsam, Kimberly F.; & Mohr, Jonathan J. (2007). Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54 (3), 306–319.

Bancroft, John. (2004). Alfred C. Kinsey and the politics of sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 15 , 1–39.

Baumeister, Roy F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially fl exible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126 , 347–374.

Bem, Daryl J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103 , 320–335.

Bem, Daryl J. (2000). Exotic becomes erotic: Interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29 , 531–548.

Beutel, Manfred E.; Brähler, Elmar; Glaesmer, Heide; Kuss, Daria J.; Wölfl ing, Klaus; & Müller, Kai W. (2011). Regular and problematic leisure-time Internet use in the community: Results from a German population- based survey. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14 (5), 291–296.

Blackwell, Christopher W.; & Dziegielewski, Sophia F. (2012). Using the Internet to meet sexual partners: Research and practice implications. Journal of Social Service Research, 38 (1), 46–55.

Blackwood, Evelyn. (2000). Culture and women’s sexualities. Journal of Social Issues, 56 , 223–238. Blaise, Mindy. (2010). Kiss and tell: Gendered narratives and childhood sexuality. Australasian Journal of Early

Childhood, 35 (1), 1–9.