The effect of occupational status cues on memory for male and female targets

Psychology of Women Quarterly

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 161-169

  Stewart, Tracie L ^a   Vassar, Patricia M ^b  

^a BARD COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034390620     PISSN: 03616843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00197.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Balkwell, J. W. (1991). From expectations to behavior: An improved postulate for expectation states theory. American Sociological Review, 56, 355-369.
2. Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
3. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 451-462.
5. Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 203-216.
6. Estes, S. B., & Glass, J. L. (1996). Job changes following childbirth: Are women trading compensation for family-responsive work conditions? Work and Occupations, 23, 405-436.
7. Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotypes. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.
8. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
9. Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1997). Subordination and nonverbal sensitivity: A hypothesis in search of support. In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), Women, men, and gender: Ongoing debates (pp. 120-133). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10. Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don't know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 3-26.
11. Jackson, L. A., & Hymes, R. W. (1985). Gender and social categorization: Familiarity and ingroup polarization in recall and evaluation. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 81-88.
12. Kasof, J. (1993). Sex bias in the naming of stimulus persons. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 140-163.
13. LaFrance, M., & Henley, N. M. (1994). On oppressing hypotheses: Or differences in nonverbal sensitivity revisited. In H. L. Radtke & K. J. Stam (Eds.), Power/gender: Social relations in theory and practice (pp. 287-311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1992). Categorisation sociale et memoire [Social categorization in memory]. Unpublished raw data.
15. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1998). Group status and perceptions of homogeneity. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 31-75). Chichester: Wiley.
16. Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Eagly, A. H., & Stewart, T. L. (1995). Homogeneity of gender groups in memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 193-217.
17. Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 45-81.
18. Ostrom, T. M., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal groups. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 536-552.
19. Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051-1068.
20. Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 553-567.
21. Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., Sidanius, J., & Siers, B. (1997). The gender gap in occupational role attainment: A social dominance approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 37-53.
22. Ridgeway, C. L. (1993). Gender, status, and the social psychology of expectations. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender/feminism on theory (pp. 175-198). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
23. Sedikides, C. (1997). Differential processing of ingroup and outgroup information: The role of relative group status in permeable boundary groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 121-144.
24. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219-220.
25. Stewart, T. L., Vassar, P. M., Sanchez, D. T., & David, S. E. (1999). Attitude toward women's societal roles moderates the effect of gender cues on target individuation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
26. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214.
27. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. San Diego, CA: Academic.
28. Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778-793.
29. van Twuyver, M., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). Effects of group membership and identification on categorization and subtyping in social memory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 531-553.
30. Young, H., van Knippenberg, A., Ellemers, N., & de Vries, N. (1994, October). When are they all alike? The effect of status and group membership on information organization and perceived homogeneity. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology and the Society of Experimental Social Psychologists, Reno, NV.