Bias, Feminism, and the Psychology of Investigating Gender

Psychology of Science: Implicit and Explicit Processes

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Eagly, Alice H ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Congeniality bias; Correspondent inference; Gender; Gender identity; Implicit biases; Ingroup bias; Judgmental biases; Psychological essentialism; Social cognition; Social psychology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921757476     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753628.003.0012     Document Type: Chapter

References (95)

1. Anderson, K. J., & Leaper, C. (1998).Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational interruption: Who, what, when, where, and how. Sex Roles, 39, 225-252. doi:10.1023/A:1018802521676
2. Archer, J., & Mehdikhani, M. (2003). Variability among males in sexually selected attributes. Review of General Psychology, 7, 219-236. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.3.219
3. Bastardi, A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Ross, L. (2011). Wishful thinking: Belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychological Science 22, 731-732. doi:10.1177/0956707611406447
4. Becker, B. J. (1986).Influence again: Another look at studies of gender differences in social influence. In J. S. Hyde & M. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 178-209). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. doi:10.1037/h0036215
6. Bettelheim, B. (1965). The commitment required of a woman entering a scientific profession in present-day American society. In J. A. Mattfield & C. G. Van Aken (Eds.), Women and the scientific professions (pp. 3-19). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and ingroup bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520-542. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.520
8. Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515-520. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00712.x
9. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. Srull & R. S. Wyer Jr. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol.1, pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429-444.
11. Buss, D. M. (1984). Evolutionary biology and personality psychology: Toward a conception of human nature and individual differences. American Psychologist, 39, 1135-1147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1135
12. Chaiken, S., & Legerwood, A. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 246-266). London, England: Sage.
13. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought: Limits of awareness, intention, and control (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14. Chapman, S., Ragg, M., & McGeechan, K. (2009). Citation bias in reported smoking prevalence in people with schizophrenia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 4, 277-282. doi:10.1080/00048670802653372
15. Chodorow, N. J. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16. Darwin, C. (1882). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (new ed.). New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company
17. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369
18. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: Asocial-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145-158. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.145
20. Eagly, A. H. (1998). Attitudes and the processing of attitude-relevant information. In J. G. Adair, D. Bélanger, & K. L. Dion (Eds.), Advances in psychological science: Social, personal and cultural aspects (Proceedings of the 26th International Congress of Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 185-201). East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
21. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1-20. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.1
22. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
23. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2005). Attitude research in the 21st century: The current state of knowledge. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 743-767). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Eagly, A. H., Chen, S., Chaiken, S., & Shaw-Barnes, K. (1999). The impact of attitudes on memory: An affair to remember. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 64-89. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.64
25. Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. (in press). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist.
26. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233
27. Eagly, A. H., Kulesa, P., Brannon, L. A., Shaw, K., & Hutson-Comeaux, S. (2000). Why counterattitudinal messages are as memorable as proattitudinal messages: The importance of active defense against attack. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1392-1408. doi:10.1177/0146167200263007
28. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex Roles, 64, 758-767. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9
29. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory: A biosocial analysis of sex differences and similarities. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458-476). London, England: Sage.
30. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5
31. Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379-398). London, England: Sage.
32. Erikson, E. (1964). Inner and outer space: Reflections on womanhood. Daedalus, 93, 582-606.
33. Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008a). Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender differences in decoding women's sexual intent. Psychological Science, 19, 348-354. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02092.x
34. Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008b). Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 48-66. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.002
35. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
36. Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
37. Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
38. Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
39. Gawronski, B. (2003). On difficult questions and evident answers: Dispositional inference from role-constrained behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1459-1475. doi:10.1177/0146167203256375
40. Geary, D. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229-284. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00042400
41. Gilbert, D. T. (1998). Ordinary personology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89-150). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
42. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Greenwald, A. G., & Schuh, E. S. (1994). An ethnic bias in scientific citations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 623-639. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240602
44. Haig, D. (2004). The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: Social change in academic titles, 1945-2001. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 87-96. doi:10.1023/B:ASEB.0000014323.56281.0d
45. Hall, G. S. (1918). Youth, its education, regimen and hygiene. New York, NY: Appleton.
46. Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845-857. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.4.845
47. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
48. Hart, W., Albarracin, D., Eagly, A. H., Lindberg, M., Merrill, L., Brechan, I., & Lee, K. H. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555-588. doi:10.1037/a0015701
49. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113-127. doi: 10.1348/014466600164363
50. Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111-136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
51. Hollingworth, L. S. (1914). Variability as related to sex differences in achievement. American Journal of Sociology, 19, 510-530.
52. Horner, M. S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 157-175.
53. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290
54. Kelley, L. P., & Blashfield, R. K. (2009). An example of psychological science's failure to self-correct. Review of General Psychology, 13, 122-129. doi:10.1037/a0015287
55. Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J. K., & Li, N. P. (2005). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 803-827).
56. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Kite, M. E., Russo, N. F., Brehm, S. S., Fouad, N. A., Hall, C. C. I., Hyde, J. S., & Keita, G. P. (2001). Women psychologists in academe: Mixed progress, unwarranted complacency. American Psychologist, 56, 1080-1098. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.12.1080
57. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
58. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
59. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 69-70. doi:10.1007/BF01173636
60. Mahoney, M. J. (1979). Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9, 349-375. doi:10.1177/030631277900900304
61. Martin, C. L., & Parker, S. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 45-57. doi: 10.1177/0146167295211006
62. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. Century psychology series. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
63. Mead, M. (1935). Sex and temperament in three primitive societies. New York, NY: William Morrow.
64. Mednick, M. T. (1989). On the politics of psychological constructs: Stop the bandwagon, I want to get off. American Psychologist, 44, 1118-1123. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.8.1118
65. Mill, J. S. (1869). The subjection of women. New York, NY: Appleton.
66. Miller, G. A. (1963). Thinking, cognition, and learning. In B. Berelson (Ed.), The behavioral sciences today (pp. 139-150). New York, NY: Basic Books.
67. Morton, T. A., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2006). We value what values us: The appeal of identity-affirming science. Political Psychology, 27, 823-838. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00539.x
68. Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653-664. doi:10.1037/a0012966
69. Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220202
70. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychological essentialism of human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 202-206. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00504.x
71. Rangel, U., & Keller, J. (2011). Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1056-1078. doi: 10.1037/a0022401
72. Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367-386. doi:10.2307/2580244
73. Ridgeway, C. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
74. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). New York, NY: Academic Press.
75. Ross, L. D., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485-494. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.35.7.485
76. Shields, S. A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist, 30, 739-754. doi:10.1037/h0076948
77. Shields, S. A., & Bhatia, S. (2009). Darwin on race, gender, and culture. American Psychologist, 64, 111-119. doi:10.1037/a0013502
78. Skitka, L. J., Mullen, E., Griffin, T., Hutchinson, S., & Chamberlin, B. (2002). Dispositions, scripts, or motivated correction? Understanding ideological differences in explanations for social problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 470-487. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.470
79. Smiler, A. P., & Gelman, S. A. (2008). Determinants of gender essentialism in college students. Sex Roles, 58, 864-874. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9402-x
80. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
81. Strube, M. J., & Garcia, J. E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 307-321. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.307
82. Thomas, J. R., & French, K. E. (1985). Gender differences across age in motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 260-282. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.260
83. Thompson, H. B. (1903). The mental traits of sex. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
84. Turner, J. C. (2000). Social identity. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 341-343). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
85. Uleman, J. S., Saribay, S. A., & Gonzalez, C. M. (2008). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 329-360. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093707
86. Vicinus, M. (Ed.). (1972). Suffer and be still: Women in the Victorian age. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
87. Weisstein, N. (1968). Kinder, Kirche, Kuche as scientific law: Psychology constructs the female. Boston, MA: New England Press.
88. Weisstein, N. (1971). Psychology constructs the female or, the fantasy life of the male psychologist (with some attention to the fantasies of his friends, the male biologist and the male anthropologist). Journal of Social Education, 35, 362-373.
89. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125-151.
90. Wood, W. (1987). Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53-71. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.53
91. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2009). Gender identity. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 109-125). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
92. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 629-667). New York, NY: John Wiley.
93. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (in press). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46). London: Elsevier.
94. Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 11, 323-345. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.323
95. Yzerbyt, V., & Demoulin, S. (2010). Intergroup relations. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1024-1083). New York, NY: John Wiley.