Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 18, Issue 1–2, pp 41–58 | Cite as

The effect of gender-schematic processing on decisions about sex-inappropriate sport behavior

  • Sherri Matteo
Article

Abstract

This research investigates the effect of gender-schematic processing on decisions to reject sex-inappropriate sports. Sex-typed subjects expressly state concerns about the gender appropriateness of the sport more often than androgynous and undifferentiated subjects. Moreover, they rate gender-based factors as more important to their decisions than the latter two groups. Second, we assess whether gender-schematic processing of the self extends to gender-schematic processing of others. When told only that a fictitious person enjoys doing either a masculine or feminine sport, sex-typed subjects are more likely to draw sex-consistent conclusions about that person than are androgynous and undifferentiated subjects. A discussion of cross-sex-typed subjects' responses is included and it is suggested that considering males' responses separately from females' may be more informative for certain experimental tasks.

Keywords

Social Psychology Experimental Task Fictitious Person Sport Behavior Gender Appropriateness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, S. M., & Bem, S. L. Sex typing and androgyny in dyadic interaction: Individual differences in responsiveness of physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, 41, 74–86.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1975, 31, 634–643.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex-typing. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 354–364.Google Scholar
  4. Bem, S. L. Gender schema theory. In T. B. Sonderregger (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1984: The Psychology Gender. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. L., Lenney, E. Sex typing and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 48–54.Google Scholar
  6. Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1016–1023.Google Scholar
  7. Deaux, K., & Major, B. Sex-related patterns in the unit of perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3, 297–300.Google Scholar
  8. Dyer, K. F. Challenging the men. The social biology of female sporting achievement. St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. Social cognition. New York: Random House, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. Fong, G. T., & Markus, H. Self-schemas and judgments about others. Social Cognition, 1982, 1, 191–205.Google Scholar
  11. Frable, D. E. S., & Bem, S. L. If you're gender-schematic, all members of the opposite sex look alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, 49, 459–468.Google Scholar
  12. Gerber, E. W. The American woman in sport. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1974.Google Scholar
  13. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. The Adjective Check List manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  14. Griffin-Shelley, E. Sex role ratings of selected sports by college students. Paper presented at the meeting of the Estern Psychological Association, April 1983.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, D. V. Research studies in the female athlete: Psychological considerations. Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1975, 46, 32–36.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, D. V. Femininity and athleticism: Conflict or consonance? In D. F. Sabo & R. Runfola (Eds.), Jocks: Sports and male identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980.Google Scholar
  17. LaFrance, M. Gender gestures: Sex, sex-role and nonverbal communication. In C. Mayo & N. M. Henley (Eds.), Gender and nonverbal behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  18. LaFrance, M., & Carmen, B. The nonverbal display of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 36–49.Google Scholar
  19. Lippa, R. The naive perception of masculinity-femininity on the basis of expressive cues. Journal of Research in Personality, 1978, 12, 1–14.Google Scholar
  20. Lippa, R. Sex typing and the perception of body outlines. Journal of Personality, 1983, 51, 667–682.Google Scholar
  21. Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39, 821–831.Google Scholar
  22. Markus, H., Crane, M., Bernstein, S., Siladi, M. Self-schemas and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 38–50.Google Scholar
  23. Martin, C. L., Halverson, C. F. A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 1981, 52, 1119–1134.Google Scholar
  24. Matteo, S. The effect of sex and gender-schematic processing on sport participation. Sex Roles, 1986, 15, 417–432.Google Scholar
  25. Matteo, S. The influence of family and peer support systems adolescents' sport participation. Unpublished manuscript, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. Mills, C. J. Sex-typing and self-schemata effects on memory and response latency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, 45, 163–172.Google Scholar
  27. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1980, 5, 147–163.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, S. E., & Falcone, H. Cognitive bases of stereotyping: The relationship between categorization and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1982, 8, 426–432.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sherri Matteo
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Serra HouseStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations