Two studies compared Dutch college students' individuation of women and men. Participants read trait descriptions and formed impressions of male and female targets. They then attempted to recall which traits had described each target. Consistent with the status hypothesis, participants viewed men as higher status and made fewer recall errors overall for male targets, indicating greater individuation of men. However, this effect was moderated by attitudes. Participants with more traditional attitudes toward women's roles individuated men more than women, whereas those with less traditional views individuated women and men equally.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FiskeS. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotypes.American Psychologist,48, 621–628
2.
Lorenzi-CioldiF. (1998). Group status and perceptions of homogeneity. In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 31–75). Chichester, England: Wiley
3.
Lorenzi-CioldiFEaglyA. H.StewartT. L. (1995). Homogeneity of gender groups in memory.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,31, 193–217
4.
Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid. (2000). Van vrouwenstrijd naar vanzelfsprekendheid: Meerjarennota emancipatiebeleid. Retrieved August 5, 2002, from the SZW web site: http://home.szw.nl
5.
NeveR. J. M. (1995). Changes in attitudes toward women's emancipation in the Netherlands over two decades: Unraveling a trend.Social Science Research,24, 167–187
6.
ParkB.RothbartM. (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
7.
SmithP. B.BondM. H. (1999). Social psychology across cultures (2 ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon
8.
SpenceJ. T.HelmreichR. L. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure the attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society.JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology,2, 66–67
9.
StewartT. L.BerkvensM.EngelsWA. E.PassJ. A. (2003). Status and likability: Can the ``mindful'' woman have it all?Journal of Applied Social Psychology,33, 2040–2059
10.
StewartT. L.HarrisK. R.van KnippenbergA.HermsenB. J.JolyJ.LippmannM.W (2003). The effect of attitude toward women on the relative individuation of women and men is mediated by perceived gender subgroups. Manuscript under review
11.
StewartT. L.VassarP. M.SanchezD. T.DavidS. E. (2000). Attitude toward women's societal roles moderates the effect of gender cues on target individuation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79, 143–157
12.
TakiffH. A.SanchezD. T.StewartT. L. (2001). What's in a name? The status implications of students' terms of address for male and female professors.Psychology of Women Quarterly,25, 134–144
13.
TaylorS. E.FiskeS. T.EtcoffN. L.RudermanA. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36, 778–793
14.
Van OenenG. (2000, September 18). Take it easy: How underenforcing law can benefit the rule of law. NRC Handelsblad
15.
VrugtA. J.NautaM. C. (1995). Subtle prejudice against women in the Netherlands.The Journal of Social Psychology,135, 601–606
16.
WilliamsJ. E.BestD. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
17.
YoungH.van KnippenbergA.EllemersN.DeVriesA. (1997). The effects of group membership and social context on information organization.European Journal of Social Psychology,27, 523–537
