女大学生对于夫妻地位的态度——内隐和外显的比较
Female College Students’ Attitude towards Marital Status—An Implicit and Explicit Comparison
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2022.123082, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 454  浏览: 728 
作者: 杨 文, 李晓亭, 肖 风*:山西师范大学教育科学学院,山西 太原
关键词: 性别偏见女大学生夫妻地位内隐联想外显态度Gender Prejudice Female College Students Marital Status Implicit Association Explicit Attitude
摘要: 性别偏见基于社会性别分类,偏见持有者认为偏见对象群体拥有更低的社会地位的一种态度。本研究采用内隐与外显双系统来比较女大学生对夫妻地位的态度。结果显示,女大学生在内隐层面倾向于将男性与高地位词语相联系,女性与低地位词语相联系,而外显态度表明普遍不赞同“男高女低”的夫妻地位模式。进一步相关分析发现,内隐态度与外显态度测验中各项目之间均不相关。这说明,虽然女大学生理性层面持有男女平等的想法,但在无意识层面女性仍受到男尊女卑思维的影响。
Abstract: Gender prejudice is based on gender classification, and the prejudice holders consider that the group of the prejudiced object has a lower social status. This study used a dual system of implicit and explicit to compare the attitudes of female college students towards marital status. The results showed that: female college students unconsciously tended to associate men with high positions and women with low positions, but the explicit test showed that female college students generally did not agree with the marital status model of “men possess higher status than women”. Further correlation analysis found that there was no correlation between implicit attitude and explicit attitude. Thus, although female college students hold the idea of equality between men and women on the rational level, they are still influenced by the idea of men being superior to women on the unconscious level.
文章引用:杨文, 李晓亭, 肖风 (2022). 女大学生对于夫妻地位的态度——内隐和外显的比较. 心理学进展, 12(3), 697-707. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2022.123082

1. 引言

在人类社会中,最普遍和常见的是对女性的偏见,小到言谈举止、大到社会道德标准。性别偏见是基于与性别相关的分类,认为一个群体理应获得较低社会地位的态度(Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1992; Eckes & Trautner, 2000; Hyers, 2007; Reilly et al., 1986; Shepela & Levesque, 1998; Swim et al., 2001)。进一步的定义认为,性别偏见是针对特定性别及其个体成员的不公正的看法或态度,且更侧重于负面的、概括的态度和论断(Lewis, 1955; 黄政杰,张嘉育,1998;邱龄嬅,2004)。有相当多的证据表明,包括女大学生在内,女性经历不同形式的性别偏见的概率比男性高得多(Brinkman & Rickard, 2009; Carr et al., 2000; Cortina et al., 1998; Krieger et al., 2006; Paludi & Barickman, 1992)。

性别偏见的主体主要来自男性。就职场性别研究表明,男性的性别偏见远远高于女性(Grunspan et al., 2016; Leslie et al., 2015; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Proudfoot et al., 2015; 胡志海,2005;连淑芳,2004;王沛,崔诣晨,2004;于泳红,2003)。比如,Garrett等人(1977)采用问卷调查的方式探究职业性别偏见与年龄的关系,发现年龄越小,职业性别偏见的程度越高,且男孩高于女孩(O’Keefe & Hyde, 1983)。随着时代进步,这种偏见伪装成了一种“夸赞”——善意性别偏见(Benevolent Sexism, BS)——一种在传统角色定位上限制女性,但在主观情感上爱护女性的态度(张珊珊等,2019),其本质是通过奖励符合男性需求的女性,来巩固性别不平等(Glick et al., 1997; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Glick et al., 2000)。这种性别偏见不仅和女性的受教育程度有关(Glick et al., 2002; Lipowska et al., 2016),还令女性难以察觉和有效防范应对(Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Connor et al., 2018; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Moya et al., 2007)。

性别偏见也为某些女性所具有。比如,即使是女权主义者,也更认同父权制文化规范对家庭地位分配的方式(Burr et al., 1977; Hill & John, 1982; Mirowsky, 1985; Rank, 1982; Warner et al., 1986)。当代也存在一部分女性,比如女独身主义者、女同性恋以及女丁克等,选择了消极或间接的方式抗争这种偏见,但这种反抗仅仅在形式上跳脱了女性的枷锁,却没有在文化上打破固有的模式(周莹,2013)。比如,女同性恋在亲密关系中的角色扮演类似于异性恋的相处模式,即代表男性的一方外表男性化、性格较为强势以及在经济上承担更多的责任,而作为女性的一方则与传统女性角色无异(Cass, 1984; D’Augelli, 1994; 李银河,1998)。这些都反映出女性在深层次上对传统性别角色属性和两性关系模式的认同。此外,女性在婚姻关系中权益受损比较严重,固然有很多男性压迫的因素存在,但仍有很多女性自身妥协的原因(Barreto et al., 2010; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Glick et al., 2002; Hammond & Overall, 2015; Huang et al., 2016)。基于上述研究结果,性别偏见的形成深受社会文化的影响,甚至体现在两种性别中。因此,对特定群体,尤其是女性本身的性别偏见研究也很有必要。

性别偏见的研究主要集中于职场,而两性关系中的性别偏见研究较少,且侧重于女性家庭角色。比如,周怡(1996)等人关于“男女家庭角色分享”的调查显示,即使绝大多数男性赞同男女共同承担家务的观点,但实际上女性承担更多家务。夏志兰(2002)等人的研究表明,由于“约定俗成”的家庭角色的影响,女性在社会活动中会受到比男性更大的阻力。徐安琪(2004)等人关于婚姻满意度的研究表明,妻子对家庭地位的满意度不如丈夫。因此,两性关系中同样表现出性别偏见。

在性别偏见研究中,以往研究为单系统研究,即仅采用问卷调查法(Garrett et al., 1977; Nordby, 1997; St. Pierre et al., 1994; 王道阳等,2005)、情景设置法(Gatton et al., 1999; Harris & Satter, 1981)或内隐联想测验(IAT)等方法(Glick et al., 2000; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; 蔡华俭等,2001)。少数研究者采用内隐与外显双系统研究,发现内隐性别偏见和外显性别偏见是分离的(Augoustinos et al., 2011; Baggenstos, 2001; Devine, 1989; Dovidio et al., 2002; Kawakami et al., 1998; Lepore & Brown, 1997)。比如,女大学生的外显偏见比男大学生少(Qualls et al., 1992),但女性比男性表现出更高的系统性内隐偏见(Bo et al., 2003)。本土研究中,贾凤芹(2013)采用自编的大学生现代性别偏见问卷(GMSS)、敌意和善意性别偏见量表与内隐联想范式,分别测量该群体的外显和内隐的性别偏见情况,发现当代大学生外显性别偏见形式由公开敌对转化为隐蔽否定,且普遍存在内隐性别偏见。内隐和外显性别偏见的分离可以用双重态度模型理论解释:人们对于同一态度客体可能同时存在两种不同的评价:一种是能够被人们所意识到的、所承认的外显态度,另一种则是无意识的、自动激活的内隐态度(Wilson et al., 2000)。内外态度的不一致很大程度上是传统思想与现代教育理念冲撞下的产物,因此对于性别偏见的研究仅采用单一的研究方法是不够的。

综上所述,本研究选取女大学生为目标人群,意图探究女大学生在两性关系中是否存有性别偏见。IAT采用表示夫妻关系的男女称谓词,和表示地位高低的四字词为材料,来测量内隐性别偏见;以及采用大学生婚恋观调查问卷(CMLCQ)中有关“夫妻地位”的题目测量外显态度。本研究假设:女大学生对两性关系中夫妻地位的态度可能存在内隐与外显的不一致,即外显态度表现为不认同“男高女低”的夫妻地位模式,而内隐态度则相反。本研究的意义在于通过对女大学生对夫妻地位的内隐与外显态度比较研究,了解当代女大学生对于妇女家庭地位的预期态度,为性别偏见的相关研究提供数据支持。

2. 研究方法

2.1. 被试

有偿招募73名在校女大学生,平均年龄M = 21.25岁,SD = 2.45。所有被试身体健康,视力或矫正视力正常,均为右利手。其中,2名被试数据的错误率高于40%被删除,1人猜测出实验意图,其数据被删除,最后用于统计分析的有效被试为70人。

2.2. 实验设计和材料

采用2 (夫妻关系的称谓词:男性称谓词/女性称谓词) × 2 (属性类别词:高地位词/低地位词)的被试内设计。因变量是被试在联合辨别(男性称谓词/高地位词,女性称谓词/低地位词)任务与相反联合辨别(女性称谓词/高地位词,男性称谓词/低地位词)任务中的反应时。

采用经典IAT范式,其基本逻辑为:如果被试对夫妻地位关系持有性别刻板印象,在联合辨别任务中,概念词(称谓词)和属性词的关系与被试的内隐态度一致,那么辨别任务更多依赖自动化加工,因而反应时短;但在相反联合辨别任务中,概念词和属性词的关系与被试的内隐态度不一致,从而导致被试的认知冲突,此时辨别任务更多依赖复杂的意识加工,相对较难,因而反应时长。

为消除被试与所列称谓中存在亲疏关系而导致误差,目标词进行父母双方家庭关系数量的匹配,最终选出12对目标词(爷爷和奶奶、姥爷和姥姥、舅舅和舅妈、姨夫和姨姨、姑父和姑姑、叔叔和婶婶、姐夫和姐姐、哥哥和嫂子、妹夫和妹妹、弟弟和弟媳、外公和外婆、祖父和祖母)。属性词是从现代汉语词典中挑选出词义包含形容地位高低的四字词语共28对(比如,高高在上和人微言轻、高爵显位和无名之辈、位高权重和卑不足道),并用李克特5点量表做前测,1 = 非常不符合、2 = 比较不符合、3 = 不确定、4 = 比较符合、5 = 非常符合,在评分高于3.5的材料中选出得分较高的前12对作为最终实验材料。

外显态度研究采用西南大学苏红编制的大学生婚恋观调查问卷(CMLCQ)中的夫妻地位维度,分别有“社会地位”、“经济收入”、“文化水平”、“丈夫为一家之主”以及“男主外女主内”五个维度,采用李克特5点计分方式,1 = 非常不符合、2 = 比较不符合、3 = 不确定、4 = 比较符合、5 = 非常符合。得分越高说明被试越认同“男高女低”的夫妻模式,同时也说明被试存在越深的性别偏见。本问卷具有较高的信效度,问卷的内部一致性系数为0.847,6个因素除因素五为0.694之外,其余均在0.706~0.802之间,信度良好,对问卷各因素之间以及他们与总问卷之间的相关性进行了检验,各因素之间相关系数在0.086~0.541之间,为低到中度正相关。各因素与总分之间的相关系数在0.508~0.721之间,为中到高度正相关,表明问卷结构效度良好。

2.3. 实验程序

邀请被试到实验室进行实验,所有操作在计算机上进行。被试根据计算机屏幕上的指导语完成IAT。每个试次以注视点“+”开始,持续500 ms,接着呈现目标刺激3000 ms,直到被试按键后刺激消失。如果3000 ms内没有做出反应,将会进入500 ms的空屏缓冲,在练习阶段则是500 ms的按键反馈,具体实验步骤如表1所示。

Table 1. IAT materials and procedures

表1. 内隐联想测验的材料和步骤

实验结束后使用问卷对其在实验中“是否有意识成分参与”进行测评,并完成大学生婚恋观调查问卷(CMLCQ)。以个人为单位对填写问卷的要求进行了测前说明,被试了解要求后于两分钟内完成问卷。测后将问卷集中回收,并给予被试相应的实验报酬。

3. 实验结果

首先在IAT中,将数据结果中反应时大于3000 ms的记成3000 ms,反应时小于300 ms的记成300 ms。将平均反应时进行对数转换与标准分数转换后计算IAT测验的效应值。对联合辨别任务与相反联合辨别任务中的反应时进行相关样本t检验,结果表明:相对于相反联合辨别任务,被试在联合辨别任务上的表现更好。同时也说明被试在内隐态度层面更倾向于将夫妻关系中的男性与高地位词语相联系,将夫妻关系中的女性与低地位词语相联系,具体结果见表2

Table 2. Paired sample t-test of joint discrimination and opposite joint discrimination tasks

表2. 联合辨别与相反联合辨别任务的配对样本t检验

注:*p < 0.05;**p < 0.01;***p < 0.001。

其次,对收集的外显问卷结果进行描述统计分析,发现女大学生对于“男高女低”的夫妻地位所持态度与以往研究不同。由表3可知,女大学生不赞同“男高女低”的夫妻地位模式,除“经济收入男高女低”的分数高于3外,在“社会地位男高女低”、“文化水平”、“丈夫为一家之主”以及“男主外女主内”的平均值都小于3。

最后,采用Pearson积差相关,对女大学生内隐夫妻地位态度得分与外显夫妻地位态度得分进行相关分析。结果显示,IAT与外显态度测验中各项目之间均不相关,且p均大于0.05。具体结果见表3

Table 3. Correlation analysis between the average scores of different items of CMLCQ (M ± SD) and IAT (r(p))

表3. 外显问卷不同项目的平均分(M ± SD)与内隐数据的相关分析(r(p))

4. 讨论

本研究采用内隐与外显双系统的研究方式探究女大学生对两性关系中夫妻地位的态度以及在两性关系中的性别偏见。结果显示,女大学生在夫妻地位的态度上存在内隐与外显的不一致。

IAT显示,女大学生更倾向于将目标词作为男性的称谓词与高地位的属性词搭配,而将目标词为女性的称谓词与低地位的属性词搭配。这一结果与贾凤芹(2013)的研究结果一致,即当代大学生在无意识中对女性的价值评价更低。这不同于西方研究中更加积极正面的对待女性的态度(Aronson et al., 2012; Swim et al., 1995)。究其原因,可能是:1) 婚姻本质上损害女性利益,体现为“妻职惩罚”和“母职惩罚”,为补偿婚姻带来的损失,女性更倾向选择上迁婚而非下嫁婚(Buss, 1989; Buss, 2015; Buss et al., 2001; Gustavsson & Johnsson, 2008)。同时女性往往将婚姻作为自己的人生归宿,婚后在经济上和感情上放弃权力或直接接受配偶的支配(Godwin & Scanzoni, 1989; Safilios-Rothschild, 1970; Szinivacz, 1987),从而长期无意识地处于被动地位,忍受家庭中的不公正现象(段发森,贾黎斋,2008),因此在婚姻内夫妻地位的内隐认知中更倾向于“男高女低”。2) 中国传统封建文化的影响,即“男尊女卑”的社会观念一直植根于人们的内心深处,以及媒体和互联网对于性别观念的误导影响了女孩对性别角色和性关系的看法(Ward & Harrison, 2005)。

与之相对的是,夫妻地位的外显态度的调查结果显示,女大学生普遍不赞成“男高女低”的夫妻地位模式,但在“经济收入男高女低”这个维度上表示出与前人调查一致的结果。一方面可能是由于媒体对公众人物的报道侧重于男性的成就导致的(Bretl & Cantor, 1988)。另一方面就女性自身而言,现实社会中对女性价值公开或隐蔽的物化(Objectification),导致女性产生厌女情绪,包括内在动机降低、自我效能感降低、自尊状态降低以及数学成绩降低等现象(Calogero, 2010; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Hebl et al., 2004; Kristen & Fredrickson, 2010; Noll & Fredrickson, 2010; Roberts & Gettman, 2004; Slater & Tiggemann, 2002),从而进一步引发女性在经济追求上“男应高女本低”的思想。

夫妻地位的内隐态度和外显态度之间的相关分析显示,女大学生的内隐态度与外显态度的各个维度均不存在相关,即女大学生对于夫妻地位的外显态度与内隐态度不一致,外显态度表示不赞同“男高女低”的观点,而内隐态度却相反。该结果与以往研究类似,如于泳红(2003)关于职业性别偏见的研究中也存在内隐与外显态度不一致的情况。根据Wilson等人(2000)的双重态度模型理论解释,人们对于同一客体可能同时存在有意识的外显态度和自动激活的内隐态度。就本研究外显结果而言,女大学生作为接受高等教育的人群可能会表现出符合当代价值观的言行,从而迎合社会期许来回答问题,或迫于社会压力而隐藏内心所想。有研究认为,已然的社会角色反过来会影响荷尔蒙、自我以及社会调节,最终强化男性与女性在想法、感觉和行为上的差异(Eagly & Wood, 2013; Prentice & Carranza, 2010; Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999)。因此,本研究使用IAT范式可能测量出被试的潜意识中真正的想法,即赞同“男高女低”的夫妻地位模式。

本研究旨在为解释特定群体的性别偏见提供实证研究证据,采用内隐与外显双系统的研究方法,发现女大学生对于夫妻地位态度存在外显和内隐的不一致,外显态度表示不赞同“男高女低”的夫妻地位模式,而内隐结果与此相反。

致谢

本研究是在我的导师肖风副教授的亲切关怀和悉心指导下完成的。她严肃的科学态度,严谨的治学精神,精益求精的工作作风,深深地感染和激励着我。从课题的选择到项目的最终完成,肖老师都始终给予我细心的指导和不懈的支持。肖老师不仅在学业上给我以精心指导,同时还在思想、工作上给我很多宝贵的建议,在此谨向肖老师致以诚挚的谢意和崇高的敬意。

同时,我还要感谢一起学习交流的2019届各位同门,正是由于你们的帮助和支持,我才能在写论文期间迷茫和疑惑的时候得到解答,并且始终有感受到精神上的鼓舞。

再次感谢我的尊敬的导师以及其他教导过我的老师们、我亲爱的同学们,有了你们,我的研究才能更加顺利地完成,我在学校的学习生涯才更加完整,我学到的东西除了得之于书本,更少不了你们的言传身教以及日常交流。

附录

1) IAT实验材料

目标词:具有夫妻关系的称谓词

男性称谓:爷爷、姥爷、舅舅、姨夫、姑父、叔叔、姐夫、哥哥、妹夫、弟弟、外公、祖父;女性称谓:奶奶、姥姥、舅妈、姨姨、姑姑、婶婶、姐姐、嫂子、妹妹、弟媳、外婆、祖母

属性词:形容地位高低的四字词语

地位高:北斗之尊、德高望重、举足轻重、位高权重、泰山北斗、权尊势重、身名俱泰、势位至尊、有权有势、九五之位、位极人臣、高爵显位

地位低:低人一等、人微言轻、人微言贱、身微言轻、无名小卒、无名之辈、卑不足道、人微望轻、贩夫走卒、俯首听命、唯命是从、唯命是听

2) IAT实验目的调查

你认为本次实验的目的是?

A、测试反应时 B、不知道 C、其他(请写出你的想法)

3) 大学生婚恋观(CMLCQ)调查——夫妻维度问卷

亲爱的同学:

您好!欢迎您参与本次调查研究,本研究所有问题的选项无对错之分,且采用匿名方式。请根据自己的实际情况填写,衷心感谢您的支持与合作!

注意事项:下面是一些描述对于婚姻关系中夫妻地位问题的看法,请您根据与其自己的想法与题目的相同与相反的程度,在问卷上用“√”标出相应的数字,数字具体含义如下:1 = 完全不同,2 = 有点不同,3 = 平等,4 = 有点相同,5 = 完全相同。每一个问题都请根据您的第一感觉做出选择。每一个问题都需要回答,所有题目只限选一个。

1. 我认为丈夫的社会地位应该高于妻子 1 2 3 4 5

2. 我认为丈夫的经济收入应该高于妻子 1 2 3 4 5

3. 我认为丈夫的文化水平应高于妻子 1 2 3 4 5

4. 我认为丈夫应是一家之主 1 2 3 4 5

5. 我认为在家庭中还是应该倡导“男主外,女主内”的观点 1 2 3 4 5

问卷部分已结束,感谢您的参与!

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] 蔡华俭, 周颖, 史青海(2001). 内隐联想测验(IAT)及其在性别刻板印象研究中的应用. 社会心理研究, (4), 6-11.
[2] 段发森, 贾黎斋(2008). 大学生对夫妻家庭角色内隐刻板印象的研究. 青年学报, (4), 57-60.
[3] 胡志海(2005). 大学生职业性别刻板印象的内隐研究. 心理科学, 28(5), 1122-1125.
[4] 黄政杰, 张嘉育(1998). 消除性别偏见的课程与教学. 两性平等教育季, (3), 25-38.
[5] 贾凤芹(2013). 大学生性别偏见内隐与外显双系统研究. 博士学位论文, 苏州: 苏州大学.
[6] 李银河(1998). 同性恋亚文化. 今日中国出版社.
[7] 连淑芳(2004). 社会调节对内隐刻板印象的影响研究. 心理科学, 27(5), 1046-1048.
[8] 邱龄嬅(2004). 现行高文教科书的性别偏见研究. 硕士学位论文, 高雄: 高雄师范大学.
[9] 王道阳, 张更立, 姚本先(2005). 大学生性别角色观的差异. 心理学报, 37(5), 658-664.
[10] 王沛, 崔诣晨(2004). 认知资源和信息类型对大学生职业印象形成的影响. 心理学探新, 24(2), 53-57.
[11] 夏志兰(2002). 女性社会角色的再认识. 内蒙古师范大学学报, 31(2), 33-35.
[12] 徐安琪(2004). 夫妻权力模式与女性家庭地位满意度研究. 浙江学刊, (2), 208-213.
[13] 于泳红(2003). 大学生内隐职业偏见和内隐职业性别刻板印象研究. 心理科学, 26(4), 672-675.
[14] 张珊珊, 谢晋宇, 吴敏(2019). “蜜糖裹砒霜”: 善意性别偏见对女性生涯发展的影响. 心理科学进展, 27(8), 1478-1488.
[15] 周怡(1996). 男女家庭角色分享中的困境及对策. 社会科学, (3), 48-51.
[16] 周莹(2013). 女性对自我社会性别角色的认同和抗争——基于布迪厄性别权力关系生产机制理论的分析. 黑河学刊, (9), 180-182.
[17] Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2012). Social Psychology. Pearson Education Press.
[18] Augoustinos, M., Ahrens, C., & Innes, J. M. (2011). Stereotypes and Prejudice: The Australian Experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 125-141.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01014.x
[19] Baggenstos, D. A. (2001). Affective and Cognitive Components of Racial Attitudes: The Relationship between Directive and Indirective Measures. Ph.D. Dissertation, Western Washington University.
[20] Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The Burden of Benevolent Sexism: How It Contributes to the Maintenance of Gender Inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 633-642.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.270
[21] Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Piebinga, L., & Moya, M. (2010). How Nice of Us and How Dumb of Me: The Effect of Exposure to Benevolent Sexism on Women’s Task and Relational Self-Descriptions. Sex Roles, 62, 532-544.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9699-0
[22] Bo, E., Akrami, N., & Araya, T. (2003). Gender Differences in Implicit Prejudice. Personality Individual Differences, 34, 1509-1523.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00132-0
[23] Bretl, D. J., & Cantor, J. (1988). The Portrayal of Men and Women in U.S. Television Commercials: A Recent Content Analysis and Trends over 15 Years. Sex Roles, 18, 595-609.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287963
[24] Brinkman, B. G., & Rickard, K. M. (2009). College Students’ Descrip-tions of Everyday Gender Prejudice. Sex Roles, 61, 461-475.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9643-3
[25] Burr, W. R., Ahern, L., & Knowles, E. M. (1977). An Empirical Test of Rodman’s Theory of Resources in Cultural Context. Journal of Marriage and Family, 39, 505-514.
https://doi.org/10.2307/350905
[26] Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolu-tionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
[27] Buss, D. M. (2015). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315663319
[28] Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A Half Century of Mate Preferences: The Cultural Evolution of Values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491-503.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x
[29] Calogero, R. M. (2010). A Test of Objectification Theory: The Effect of the Male Gaze on Appearance Concerns in College Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 16-21.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00118.x
[30] Carr, P. L., Ash, A. S., Friedman, R. H., Szalacha, L., Barnett, R. C., Palepu, A., & Moskowitz, M. M. (2000). Faculty Perceptions of Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 132, 889-896.
https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-132-11-200006060-00007
[31] Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual Identity Formation: A Theoretical Model. Journal of Homosexuality, 20, 143-167.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498409551214
[32] Connor, R. A., Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2018). Ambivalent Sexism in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge University Press.
[33] Cortina, L., Swan, R. J., Fitzgerald, L., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual Harassment and Assault: Chilling the Climate for Women in Academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 419-441.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00166.x
[34] D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity Development and Sexual Orientation: Toward a Model of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Development. Jos-sey-Bass.
[35] Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
[36] Dietz-Uhler, B., & Murrell, A. (1992). College Students’ Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: Are Gender Differences Decreasing? Journal of College Student Development, 33, 540-546.
[37] Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and Explicit Prejudice and Interracial Interaction. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 82, 62-68.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.62
[38] Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The Nature-Nurture Debates 25 Years of Challenges in Understanding the Psychology of Gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 340-357.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613484767
[39] Eckes, T., & Trautner, H. M. (2000). The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[40] Fredrickson, B., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women’s Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
[41] Garrett, C. S., Ein, P. L., & Tremaine, L. (1977). The Development of Gender Stereo-Typing of Adult Occupations in Elementary School Children. Child De-velopment, 48, 507-512.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1128646
[42] Gatton, D. S., Dubois, C. L. Z., & Faley, R. H. (1999). The Effects of Organizational Context on Occupational Gender-Stereotyping. Sex Roles, 40, 567-582.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018888013808
[43] Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inven-tory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
[44] Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An Ambivalent Alliance: Hos-tile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
[45] Glick, P., Diebold, J., Baileywerner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The Two Faces of Adam: Ambivalent Sexism and Polarized Attitudes toward Women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323-1334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972312009
[46] Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B. et al. (2000). Beyond Prejudice as Simple Antipathy: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism across Cultures. Per-sonality Social Psychology, 79, 763-775.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
[47] Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, Y. R. (2002). Education and Catholic Religiosity as Predictors of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism toward Women and Men. Sex Roles, 47, 433-441.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021696209949
[48] Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & de Souza, M. A. (2002). Ambivalent Sexism and Attitudes toward Wife Abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 291-296.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068
[49] Godwin, D. D., & Scanzoni, J. (1989). Couple Consensus during Marital Joint Decision-Making: A Context, Process, Outcome Model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51, 943-956.
https://doi.org/10.2307/353207
[50] Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4
[51] Grunspan, D. Z., Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., Wiggins, B. L., Crowe, A. J., & Goodreau, S. M. (2016). Males Under-Estimate Academic Performance of Their Female Peers in Undergraduate Biology Classrooms. PLoS ONE, 11, e0148405.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148405
[52] Gustavsson, L., & Johnsson, J. I. (2008). Mixed Support for Sexual Selection Theories of Mate Preferences in the Swedish Population. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 575-585.
https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600404
[53] Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Benevolent Sexism and Support of Romantic Partner’s Goals: Undermining Women’s Competence While Fulfilling Men’s Intimacy Needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1180-1194.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215593492
[54] Harris, M. B., & Satter, B. J. (1981). Sex-Role Stereotype of Kindergarten Children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 138, 49-61.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1981.10532841
[55] Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Lin, J. (2004). The Swimsuit Becomes Us All: Ethnicity, Gender, and Vulnerability to Self-Objectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322-1331.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264052
[56] Hill, W., & John, S. C. (1982). Approach for Assessing Marital Decision-Making Processes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 927-941.
https://doi.org/10.2307/351455
[57] Huang, Y., Davies, P. G., Sibley, C. G., & Osborne, D. (2016). Benevolent Sexism, Attitudes toward Motherhood, and Reproductive Rights: A Multi-Study Longitudinal Examination of Abortion Attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 970-984.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216649607
[58] Hyers, L. L. (2007). Resisting Prejudice Every Day: Exploring Women’s Assertive Responses to Anti-Black Racism, Anti-Semitism, Heterosexism, and Sexism. Sex Roles, 56, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9142-8
[59] Kawakami, K., Dion, K. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Racial Prejudice and Stereotype Activation. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 407-416.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298244007
[60] Krieger, N., Waterman, P. D., Hartman, C., Bates, L. M., Stod-dard, A. M., Quinn, M. M. et al. (2006). Social Hazards on the Job: Workplace Abuse, Sexual Harassment, and Racial Discrimination—A Study of Black, Latino, and White Low-Income Women and Men Workers in the United States. International Journal of Health Services, 36, 51-85.
https://doi.org/10.2190/3EMB-YKRH-EDJ2-0H19
[61] Kristen, H., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Women’s Sports Media, Self-Objectification, and Mental Health in Black and White Adolescent Females. Journal of Communication, 53, 216-232.
[62] Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and Stereotype Activation: Is Prejudice Inevitable? Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 72, 275-287.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.275
[63] Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions across Academic Disciplines. Science, 347, 262-265.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375
[64] Lewis, M. K. (1955). The Nature of Prejudice by Gordon W. Allport. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 267-268.
https://doi.org/10.1086/221739
[65] Lipowska, M., Lipowski, M., & Pawlicka, P. (2016). “Daughter and Son: A Completely Different Story”? Gender as a Moderator of the Relationship between Sexism and Parental Attitudes. Health Psychology Report, 4, 224-236.
https://doi.org/10.5114/hpr.2016.62221
[66] Mirowsky, J. (1985). Depression and Marital Power: An Equity Model. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 557-592.
https://doi.org/10.1086/228314
[67] Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 16474-16479.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
[68] Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, F., de Lemus, S., & Hart, J. (2007). It’s for Your Own Good: Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Reactions to Protectively Justified Restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1421-1434.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207304790
[69] Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). A Mediational Model Linking Self-Objectification, Body Shame, and Disordered Eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623-636.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x
[70] Nordby, S. R. (1997). Occupational Sex-Role Stereo-type in the Middle School. M.A. Thesis, Fort Hays State University.
[71] O’Keefe, E. S. C., & Hyde, J. S. (1983). The Development of Occupational Sex-Role Stereotype: The Effects of Gender Stability and Age. Sex Roles, 9, 481-492.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289788
[72] Paludi, M., & Barickman, R. (1992). Academic and Workplace Sexual Harassment. Violence and Victims, 7, 187-188.
https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.7.2.187
[73] Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2010). 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.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
[74] Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., & Koval, C. Z. (2015). A Gender Bias in the Attribution of Creativity: Archival and Experimental Evidence for the Perceived Association between Masculinity and Creative Thinking. Psychological Science, 26, 1751-1761.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615598739
[75] Qualls, R. C., Cox, M. B., & Schehr, T. L. (1992). Racial Atti-tudes on Campus: Are There Gender Differences? Journal of College Student Development, 33, 524-530.
[76] Rank, M. R. (1982). Determinants of Conjugal Influence in Wives’ Employment Decision Making. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44, 591-604.
https://doi.org/10.2307/351582
[77] Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. (1986). Sexual Harassment of University Students. Sex Roles, 15, 333-358.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287976
[78] Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The Gender System and Interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191-216.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191
[79] Roberts, T.-A., & Gettman, J. Y. (2004). Mere Exposure: Gender Differences in the Negative Effects of Priming a State of Self-Objectification. Sex Roles, 51, 17-27.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000032306.20462.22
[80] Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1970). The Study of Family Power Structure: A Review 1960-1969. Journal of Marriage and Family, 32, 539-552.
https://doi.org/10.2307/350250
[81] Shepela, S. T., & Levesque, L. L. (1998). Poisoned Waters: Sexual Harass-ment and the College Climate. Sex Roles, 38, 589-611.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018791126393
[82] Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). A Test of Objectification Theory in Adolescent Girls. Sex Roles, 46, 343-349.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020232714705
[83] St. Pierre, R., Herendeen, N. M., Moore, D. S., & Nagle, A. M. (1994). Does Occupational Stereotyping Still Exist? The Journal of Psychology, 128, 589-598.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9914916
[84] 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.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199
[85] Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. L. (2001). Everyday Sexism: Evidence for Its Incidence, Nature, and Psychological Impact from Three Daily Diary Studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31-53.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00200
[86] Szinivacz, M. (1987). Family Power. Plenum Press.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7151-3_24
[87] Ward, L. M., & Harrison, K. (2005). The Impact of Media Use on Girls’ Beliefs about Gender Roles, Their Bodies, and Sexual Relationships: A Research Synthesis. American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/11213-001
[88] Warner, R. L., Gary, R. L., & Janet, L. (1986). Social Organization, Spousal Resources, and Marital Power: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 121-128.
https://doi.org/10.2307/352235
[89] Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A Model of Dual Attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101-126.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.101