Some preliminary data and logic suggest a sex difference in “helpfulness” is a more economic explanation of the difference between men and women in the Barnum Effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AstinA.KornW. S.RiggsE. R. (1993) The American freshman: national norms for Fall 1993. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education, UCLA.
2.
BernardJ. (1981) The female world. New York: Macmillan.
3.
DindiaK.AllenM. (1992) Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 112, 106–124.
4.
EaglyA. H.CrowleyM. (1986) Gender and helping behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308.
5.
EisenbergN.LennonR. (1983) Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.
6.
ForerB. R. (1949) The fallacy of personal validation: a classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118–123.
7.
HuntM. (1990) The compassionate beast: what science is discovering about the humane side of human kind. New York: William Morrow.
8.
LayneC. (1979) The Barnum Effect: rationality versus gullibility?Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 219–221.
9.
LayneC. (1998) Gender and Barnum Effect: a reinterpretation of Piper-Terry and Downey's results. Psychological Reports, 83, 608–610.
10.
Piper-TerryM. L.DowneyJ. L. (1998) Sex, gullibility and the Barnum Effect. Psychological Reports. 82, 571–576.
11.
RubleT. L. (1983) Sex stereotypes: issues of change in the 1970s. Sex roles, 9, 397–402.
