Abstract
Two studies examined how individuals adapt the self to social trends—in particular, when the social roles of the gender ingroup change, do people readily leave behind traditional roles in favor of nontraditional roles? We hypothesized that self-relevant cognitions and behaviors would accommodate to societal change, and we found that this accommodation took the shape of greater acceptance of nontraditional roles alongside continued acceptance of traditional roles. Experiment 1 included 112 undergraduates from the Midwestern U.S. who learned about social change or social stability by reading articles ostensibly published in a newspaper. Individuals who learned about social change for their gender ingroup, relative to those learning about social stability, projected greater personal success in careers, particularly for gender-nontraditional careers. Experiment 2 examined behavioral responses to social change in a sample of 198 female undergraduates from the Midwestern U.S. Participants learned about social change or social stability and then chose to view either a website focused on physical appearance (i.e., traditional choice) or leadership (i.e., nontraditional choice). Behavioral responses to social change reflected accommodation to the anticipated social structure: Individuals who learned about social change chose to view information about nontraditional rather than traditional roles. These studies provide initial experimental evidence investigating how individuals adapt the self to the social structure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 768–776. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.768.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Sage.
Brown, E., & Diekman, A. (2010). What will I be? Exploring gender differences in near and distant possible selves. Sex Roles, 63, 568–579. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9827-x.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676.
Catalyst. (2012). Women in management in the United States, 1960-present. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/file/597/qt_women_in_us_mgmt_1960-present.pdf
Center for American Women and Politics. (2009). Women in elective office 2009. New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power (2nd ed). Psychology Press.
Cole, E. R., Zucker, A. N., & Duncan, L. E. (2001). Changing society, changing women (and men). In R. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 410–423). New York: Wiley.
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.
Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. (2012). 20 leading occupations of employed women: 2010 annual averages. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/20lead2010.htm#.UKqXV4c0V8F
Diekman, A. B. (2007). Negotiating the double bind: Interpersonal and instrumental evaluations of dominance. Sex Roles, 22, 551–561. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9198-0.
Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). New York: Guilford.
Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., & Johnston, A. M. (2010). Social structure. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 209–224). New York: Sage.
Diekman, A. B., Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Ferreira, M. C. (2005). Dynamic stereotypes about women and men in Latin America and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 209–226. doi:10.1177/0022022104272902.
Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369–383. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00312.x.
Diekman, A. B., & Hirnisey, L. (2007). The effect of context on the silver ceiling: A role congruity perspective on prejudiced responses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1353–1366. doi:10.1177/0146167207303019.
Diekman, A. B., & Murnen, S. K. (2004). Learning to be little women and little men: The inequitable gender equality of nonsexist children’s literature. Sex Roles, 50, 373–385. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000018892.26527.ea.
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2003). The malleability of sex differences in response to changing social roles. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths (pp. 103–115). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 19–35). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x.
Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T.-A., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269.
Fullerton, H. N. (1999). Labor force participation: 75 years of change, 1950–98 and 1998–2025. Monthly Labor Review, 122, 3–12.
Glick, P. (1991). Trait-based and sex-based discrimination in occupational prestige, occupational salary, and hiring. Sex Roles, 25, 351–378. doi:10.1007/BF00289761.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., … Lopez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.
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, 292–297. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068.
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.
Hill, J., & Daniels, P. (2008). Life events and rites of passage: The customs and symbols of major life-cycle milestones, including cultural, secular, and religious traditions observed in the United States. Detroit, MI: Omnigraphics.
Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 322–328. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00071.
Judd, P. C., & Oswald, P. A. (1997). Employment desirability: The interactive effects of gender-typed profile, stimulus sex, and gender-typed occupation. Sex Roles, 37, 467–476. doi:10.1023/A:1025669801166.
Kite, M. E. (2001). Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do we want women and men to be? In R. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 215–227). New York: Wiley.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027.
Lenton, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Bruder, M. (2009). A latent semantic analysis of gender stereotype-consistency and narrowness in American English. Sex Roles, 60, 269–278. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9534-z.
Levanon, A., England, P., & Allison, P. (2009). Occupational feminization and pay: Assessing causal dynamics using 1950–2000 U.S. census data. Social Forces, 88, 865–891. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0264.
Lips, H. (2012). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations. Perceived equity, discrimination, and the limits of human capital models. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z.
Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777.
Mager, J., & Helgeson, J. G. (2011). Fifty years of advertising images: Some changing perspectives on role portrayals along with enduring consistencies. Sex Roles, 64, 238–252. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9782-6.
Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 923–936. doi:10.1177/0146167210371949.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157.
Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). A test of objectification theory in adolescent girls. Sex Roles, 46, 343–349. doi:10.1023/A:1020232714705.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stewart, A. J., & Healy, J. M. (1989). Linking individual development and social changes. American Psychologist, 44, 30–42. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.1.30.
Stewart, A. J., & McDermott, C. (2004). Gender in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 519–544. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141537.
Strelan, P., & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Women who objectify other women: The vicious circle of objectification? Sex Roles, 52, 707–712. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2009). Women in the labor force: A databook (2009 Edition). Washington, DC.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447–1451. doi:10.1126/science.1198364.
Wilde, A., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in dynamic stereotypes: A comparison between Germany and the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 188–196. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00181.x.
Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635–646. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y.
Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.523.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55-123). San Diego, CA: Elsevier/Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699.
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81, 267–301. doi:10.3102/0034654311405999.
Acknowledgement
We thank Sarah Banchefsky, Elizabeth Brown, Emily Clark, Cliff Evans, Ann Hoover, and Mia Steinberg for comments on drafts of this manuscript. We also thank Maegan Addis, Natalie Baumann, Susan Craft, Jenni Kim, Nicole Kramer, Kyle Kurowski, Kristine Mack, Kelsey Nocks, Katherine Peterson, and Brian Wilkey for help in conducting this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Experiment 1 Social Trends Manipulations for Female Participants
Social Change
According to reports of recent job trends, more and more women are entering careers that were once stereotypically male. No longer are the fields of science, business, or politics just a man’s domain. Scientific data show that women have achieved more positions of leadership and power, especially recently. For example, the number of women in federal and state government positions has grown by leaps and bounds over the past few years. In addition, women have entered other formerly male-dominated areas, such as professional sports. The percentage of female Olympic medal winners has grown steadily over the past few decades. Despite some stability, the main trend for women appears to be one of great change.
Social Stability
According to reports of recent job trends, few women are entering careers that are stereotypically male. The highest levels of science, business, or politics seem to still be a man’s domain. Scientific data show that although women have achieved more positions of leadership and power, these positions are still relatively rare. For example, women in federal and state government positions are still vastly outnumbered by their male colleagues. In addition, women continue to be the minority in other male-dominated areas, such as professional sports. The percentage of female Olympic medal winners has not changed immensely over the past few decades. Despite some change, the main trend for women appears to be one of general stability.
Experiment 1 Social Trends Manipulations for Male Participants
Social Change
According to reports of recent job trends, more and more men are entering careers that were once stereotypically female. No longer are the fields of education or nursing just a woman’s domain. Scientific data show that men are beginning to enter these positions in great numbers. For example, the number of men in elementary and secondary education has grown by leaps and bounds over the past few years. In addition, men have entered other formerly female-dominated areas, such as being the primary caretaker for their children. Despite some stability, the main trend for men appears to be one of great change.
Social Stability
According to reports of recent job trends, few men are entering careers that were once stereotypically female. The fields of education and nursing seem to still be a woman’s domain. Scientific data show that although men are beginning to enter these positions, they are still relatively rare. For example, men in elementary and secondary education are still vastly outnumbered by their female colleagues. In addition, men continue to be the minority in other female-dominated areas, such as being the primary caretaker for their children. Despite some change, the main trend for men appears to be one of general stability.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Diekman, A.B., Johnston, A.M. & Loescher, A.L. Something Old, Something New: Evidence of Self-Accommodation to Gendered Social Change. Sex Roles 68, 550–561 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0263-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0263-6